RHRHTO 




ma 11 

■ grass 

Br 



Bin 







■ 




■ n 



HtlZflHlnHttiMfliM 



■P 11 




Class 
Book 



S "BUU5 



Copyright^? 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSTR 



RELIGION 

A CURSE! 

WHY ? 



RELIGION 

A CURSE! 



4-<ri_ 



-WHY? ^ 



By JULIUS KOENIG 



DEDICATED TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO 
BY WORD OR DEED ASSIST IN MAKING PEACE ON 
EARTH AND THE UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD OF 
MANKIND A REALITY. 



NEW YORK 
1915 



v\ 4 



^vy> 



Copyrighted 1915 

BY 

JULIUS KOENIG 



I 



0.{T> 



JAN 22 1915 
©CI.A391437 




From Darkness toLight 



CONTENTS 



Page 
Preface 7 

CHAPTER I. 

Is There in Existence a Conscious Supernatural Personality or 

God, Who Rules This Universe ? 12 

CHAPTER II. 

Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul Subject to Eternal Happiness 

or Eternal Torture ? 52 

CHAPTER III. 
Did God Create Man, or Did Man Create God ? 73 

CHAPTER IV. 

I« It True That Religion, as Preached and Practiced to this Day, 
by Any and All Creeds in Existence the World Over, Is the 
Great Moral Force or Agency for Good That We Are Asked 
to Believe It Is, or Is the Very Opposite the Case? 89 

CHAPTER V. 
General Review and a Word by the Author 125 

CHAPTER VI. 
Personal Talks to the Adherents of the Jewish Religion 145 

CHAPTER VII. 
Personal Talk to all the Catholics the World Over 158 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Personal Talk to all the Protestants the World Over 237 

CHAPTER IX. 
Conclusion 247 



PREFACE 



The plan of this work is simple, and yet it is novel. In its dis- 
tinctive features, it differs from any book that has yet been published. 
Although everything contained therein has perhaps been touched upon 
by different writers, such a mass of convincing facts in such compre- 
hensive language on a subject of this kind has to my knowledge 
never found its way in any book, especially one of this size, on the 
market to-day. My purpose is to prove to the world that there is no 
more reason to be in fear of death or the hereafter than there is for a 
child to fear a bogy man, and that religion of every description as 
preached to this day is not only the bogy man's story for grown-ups, 
but that it is the curse of the human race. Many readers will call this 
strong language and a bold assertion, but I can assure my religious 
friends that the assertion is as true as it is strong or bold, and I am 
positive that if you read the different chapters of this work carefully, 
you will be convinced of this. 

I have for several years studied the teachings of religion in gen- 
eral and that of the leading creeds in particular, and observed the 
effect this so-called message of God or great moral force has on the 
people the world over. This has convinced me that religion of all 
descriptions as taught and practised to this day is far from what it is 
pictured to us to be by its spokesmen or representatives, and that in- 
stead of it being an agency for good, it is an agency for evil. The 
great unrest in every part of the universe and the visible struggle of 
humanity for more light and the naked truth show that it is both 
necessary and timely to place such facts before the world which will 
awaken the human race from the death-like intellectual slumber in 
which false teachings, the fostering of superstition, and the perse- 
secution suffered through centuries have left an overwhelming major- 
ity of the people to this day. This condition of the people is also the 
main cause for the misery prevalent in the world to-day. 

In writing this book, I have therefore no other object in view 
than to expose the faulty if not criminal doctrines handed down to us 
through ages, and acquaint the world with a doctrine, if we call it 
such, where instead of superstition and blind faith in dogmatic asser- 
tions, reason and facts shall reign supreme. The existence of the old 
or present day doctrines of all religious creeds depends on blind faith, 



Preface 

superstition, and the general ignorance of its adherents, for whenever 
spiritual light breaks in on one of them, there is one believer lost to 
that cult. The new doctrine, which will embrace every human being 
the world over, depends for its existence on truth and knowledge, the 
very things that spell death to the old-form religions, and therefore 
deserves the support of every honest man and woman. The history 
of all religious creeds is one of rapine and murder; it is so full of 
fiendish deeds that it makes one shudder to think thereof, and, what is 
more, many, if not all, of them would this very day, if given the oppor- 
tunity, commit the same evil deeds as of old. I consider it high time 
that a true picture of their past be given to the world and a remedy 
proposed. In spite of all this damaging evidence, the representatives 
of these creeds tell us that religion is not a man-made affair, but a 
God-ordained work of mystery. These self-styled representatives of 
a God or Gods, knowing that the record of their creed will not bear 
investigation, leave no stone unturned in their effort to keep their 
followers in mental darkness, and they have so far been indeed suc- 
cessful. 

They will undoubtedly issue so-called warnings and orders to 
their followers not to read this publication, as they have done many 
times before when they considered themselves in danger of losing 
their livelihood through the enlightenment of the people. But, in 
spite of the desperate effort these supposedly holy men are making to 
keep their followers in ignorance, I have the utmost confidence that 
the convincing arguments used and the many facts produced in this 
work will bring the desired result. The very people, religious reader, 
who will tell you that it is a sin to read this and similar books are the 
very first ones who read these forbidden publications. The reason 
the clergy do not want their followers to read books of this kind is 
because the information which these books impart is generally such 
that it makes the receiver thereof a subject more difficult to be de- 
ceived and consequently less willing to be shorn. These self-styled 
representatives of a God or Gods on earth would also have you believe 
that, because they make their living by preaching to others, they re- 
ceived special power of understanding, and are therefore able, nay, even 
entitled to dictate to others and do their thinking for them. I, there- 
fore, appeal to you, dear reader, that whatever you may do, do not per- 
mit anyone to do your thinking for you, no matter what position he 
may hold, or how high he may stand in your estimation. This would 
mean nothing less than the giving up on your part of the greatest gift 
nature has bestowed upon you, and the only thing outside of your form 
which entitles you to a place among civilized human beings, namely, 
the power of thinking and reasoning. The preachers of all creeds and 
denominations are just as human as you and I, and their brains are 
made of the same material as those of all other people. Yes, it is safe 
to say that three-fourths of what they preach to others as the positive 

8 



Preface 

truth, they themselves know absolutely nothing about, and when 
pressed, they will admit this fact. They are also in every other re- 
spect no better than anyone else, and many of them are not half as 
good as most other people. Do not let them bluff you, dear reader, do 
your own thinking. Remember, all progress is due only to people who 
did their own thinking, and who were not afraid to learn from and 
discuss their ideas with others. Human beings who are either too 
lazy or too cowardly to think for themselves can have no share in the 
progress made. They are only dragged along. Remember, religious 
reader, we are living in the twentieth century, and not in the Middle 
Ages. Every man and woman in this enlightened age should read on 
every subject whether they agree with the writer or not, for as long 
as it is new to them, they will add to their store of knowledge. 

While it is true that clergymen of all creeds, especially the ortho- 
dox ones, are in reality nothing more or less than misleaders of the 
people, and that many are unscrupulous individuals who use their 
positions to enrich themselves at the expense of their dupes, it is 
equally true that there are many good men among them. These last 
named clergymen detest the damnable work their position forces them 
to do and would give up that miserable business this very day, if they 
did not fear the scorn of their relatives and friends, or were sure of the 
means of a livelihood after leaving their present positions. To all 
such clergymen, to whatever creed they may belong, I offer my hand 
of fellowship and ask them to take courage and join me in the task of 
enlightening our fellow-men and women, instead of helping to keep 
them in mental darkness. An overwhelming majority of people the 
world over are not only ready to throw aside a doctrine based on blind 
faith and superstition and to embrace one based on truth and knowl- 
edge, but are anxiously waiting for an opportunity to join a movement 
of this kind. This in turn spells that those interested but unable to 
agitate by tongue or pen will gladly contribute their mite in support 
of those who can and will carry the true message of peace and brother- 
ly feeling to all mankind. Come and join in the good work. To the 
clergymen or laymen who persist either through ignorance, coward- 
liness, or for other reasons best known to themselves in presenting to 
people as the truth what is not the truth, I throw my challenge to de- 
bate the question, either verbally in a public meeting or in the daily 
press. Will these supposed lovers of righteousness defend their posi- 
tion in public? We shall see. To awaken the human race from that 
dangerous mental slumber which to this day retards their intellectual 
development, and prove to them that many of their supposed friends 
are in reality their worst enemies, to banish superstition and hatred 
for our fellow-men from the minds and hearts of men and instill 
brotherly love, to make enlightenment reign supreme and bring about 
the true brotherhood of all mankind is my most earnest desire and my 
highest ambition. 



Preface 

Many able and well-meaning writers have robbed their own work 
of much good that it would otherwise have done by using big words 
and complicated expressions in expressing their views. Big words 
and high-sounding phrases are all very well when one writes exclu- 
sively for highly educated people, but their use is entirely out of place 
in a publication of any kind which is intended for all classes of society. 
While the educated man and woman derives the same benefit whether 
the writer of anything expresses himself in high-tone or plain every- 
day language, the hard-working and poorly educated man and woman 
in all walks of life will not be able to get the full meaning when they 
have to conuslt a dictionary several times on each page they read. 
It being my desire to reach and benefit every member of the human 
race and not only a small portion thereof, I have used throughout this 
book words and expressions so plain that I believe anyone at all able 
to read will find no trouble in grasping the full meaning thereof. I 
am not writing this book to make a name for myself, but for the sole 
and only purpose of helping my fellow-men and women the world over 
to escape from that mental slavery in which religion of all description 
holds the overwhelming majority of human beings to this very day. 
Therefore, I care not what critics may say in regard to my style of 
writing or words and expressions I use. 

In conclusion I will make for the benefit of those readers who may 
think that the writer of these lines is a person who was raised as an 
unbeliever, the following statement, the truth of which can be easily 
ascertained : I was born and raised a strict Roman Catholic, served 
mass for four years, and came very near studying for the priesthood. 
A second cousin of mine is a priest for the last twenty-five years. Up 
to my twenty-second year, I was as religious as it is possible for one 
to be. I defended the Catholic church against all comers and to the 
best of my ability. The last occasion for this, I found in 1897 on 
board a ship on the way to Europe, where I locked horns with a 
Protestant minister who apologized for every word he had said against 
the Catholic church before a large number of men. He then asked 
me to enlighten him on the doctrines and usages of the Catholic 
church. This I did to the best of my ability. In my travels and 
studies, there was created within me without my realizing it, an ever- 
increasing doubt as to the correctness of the religious teachings I had 
received, which soon matured in the firm conviction that they were 
wrong. For over a year, after having been thoroughly convinced of 
the untruthfulness of my early teachings, my conscience would not 
permit me to advocate my new belief, fearing that my deduction might 
after all not be correct and would mislead others. I spoke to a num- 
ber of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant friends and acquaintances of 
my new convictions. Each one of them gave me his advice as to how 
I could see the light again, as they termed it. This I obeyed to the 
letter in every case, for I wanted to learn the truth, no matter what 

10 



Preface 

it would disclose. After repeatedly praying on my knees for guidance 
from God, if there were a God in existence, to the truth and out of 
error, if I were in error, after reading verses from the Bible and listen- 
ing to many sermons and heart-rending songs in Catholic and Pro- 
testant churches, I became each time more convinced than before of 
the correctness of my views. After going through every conceivable 
test for over a year in my endeavor to know the truth, I was not only 
more strongly convinced than ever that I was right, but I felt it to be 
my duty to impart my newly-found knowledge to my fellow-men and 
women. This I have done ever since at every opportunity with en- 
couraging success. I will further state that no one human being 
in this world is responsible for my turn of mind. The convictions 
expressed by many and my own Observations are the only responsible 
factors. I will also state that I was at no time a supporter of any other 
religious creed than the one I was raised in, for all creeds now look 
alike to me. When I ceased being a supporter of the Roman Catholic 
church, I did not become what many call an unbeliever, but a critic of 
the harmful religious doctrines and a believer in and an advocate of 
the noblest and most natural doctrine ever expounded, namely, the 
true brotherhood of all mankind. 

I would not have mentioned one word about myself were I not 
desirous of acquainting my readers with the fact that the author of 
this publication is not a born unbeliever, as many may surmise, but 
one who has experienced the advantages or disadvantages whatever 
one may term it of a strict religious training. Having tried to keep 
steadfastly in view the determination to write this work in an im- 
partial spirit, to speak with respect of all parties mentioned herein, 
but never to conceal the truth, I commit it to the considerate judg- 
ment of the thoughtful reader. 

J. K. 



11 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 



CHAPTER I. 

Is There in Existence a Conscious Supernatural Personality 
or God, Who Rules this Universe? 

Before entering into the subject proper, I will announce that I 
am not opposed to all religion, good or bad, merely because of its 
name, as some may think, but that, on the contrary, it matters not to 
me what name any person or persons may see fit to give to any object 
or movement under the sun, I judge by the quality and results only. 
For instance, if a law should be passed that hereafter beefsteak must 
be called manure, and manure beefsteak, would that new name make 
a piece of good quality beefsteak worth less as a nutriment than under 
the old name, or would the new name make manure into anything 
better than it was before ? You will answer in one chorus : No. A 
name when applied to any religious movement makes just as little 
difference as the names made in the two objects mentioned above, at 
least as far as I am concerned. Every religious system in existence 
claims for itself the ultimate object of bringing about the brotherhood 
of man. The fundamental principle of the Christian religion is : Love 
thy neighbor as thyself. But it also makes no difference what in- 
stitutions or individuals lay claim to. Actions and the results thereof 
speak for themselves and louder than words can do. 

In dealing with the subject before me, I shall give to religion, as 
a whole, due credit for all the good it did in the past or is doing to-day. 
Before going to the kernel of our subject, let us look into the real 
meaning of four words often recklessly used, but little understood, 
namely, religion, faith, believer, and unbeliever. Webster's diction- 
ary defines religion as any system of faith or worship ; love and obedi- 
ence toward God. Now, my friends, what is there in that definition 
that should make it so dreadful for one not to be religious? Let us 
examine. Religion is any system of faith or worship. We have very 
many systems of faith or worship, all established and managed by 
mere men and women, of which each claims to be the only right one. 
Which one shall we support if it be absolutely necessary to support 
one? Religion means love and obedience toward God. Again I must 
ask what is there in a name, and, in this case, a name by which we 
know nothing, but merely imagine something. A thousand different 
people have each a different idea of what God is, and, in fact, we can 
give the name God to many things, as the definition in the dictionary 
will show us. God is a supernatural being conceived of as possessing 

12 



Supernatural Being or God? 

divine powers and attributes ; idol ; a person or thing deified or honor- 
ed to excess. So much for the definition of what God is. In a later 
chapter, I shall prove that the God theory is only an imagination at 
its best. 

Now, my friends, what harm can there be in not loving or obey- 
ing when we really do not know whether the object of our love or 
obedience is in existence or not? I shall use the following illustra- 
tion to make still clearer to you, religious reader, what it means to 
believe or not believe. Let us place before us a young man who was 
raised from infancy in a charitable institution, and who had just been 
released therefrom to step into the world, so to speak, and earn his 
own livelihood. While in the institution, the words father and mother 
were never mentioned to him, although he often thought of them and 
wondered who his parents were, and where they might be. But as 
soon as he is able to provide for himself, and perhaps for others as 
well, a man who claims to be a representative of his parents calls upon 
him and speaks thus : "Your father and mother have sent me here to 
tell you that they insist on you sending them, through me, their repre- 
sentative, not less than Two Dollars per week. Your parents also 
told me to tell you that, if you do as directed, they will reward you, 
and, for failure to do so, you will receive severe punishment." When 
the young man hears the names father and mother mentioned and 
learns that they are interesting themselves in him, he becomes very 
joyful and asks the man who called on him where his parents are, 
and expresses the desire to see and speak to them. The self-styled 
representative tells the young man that it is impossible to see his 
parents, or even know where they keep themselves, but that he must 
obey the orders given through him their representative without ask- 
ing any questions, or suffer the consequences. The young man in 
turn assures his caller that he is willing to make any possible sacrifice 
for his parents' sake and begs again for the privilege of meeting them 
personally. Again he receives the same reply as before. Now the 
young man becomes suspicious and speaks to the supposed repre- 
sentative in this manner : "I don't believe that you are a representa- 
tive of my parents, but an imposter, and I believe you know absolutely 
nothing about them. Furthermore, I am sure that, if my father and 
mother were alive and knew of my whereabouts, they would gladly 
permit me to deal with them personally. I, therefore, will not obey 
any orders given by you and am not afraid of the punishment you 
claim will be the result of disobedience." 

In exactly the same position that this young man stands to his 
parents and this selfstyled representative of theirs, we common folks, 
we know-nothing sheep, stand to the God preached to us and his sup- 
posed representatives on this earth. Had this young man blindly 
believed what his caller told him and obeyed his orders, he would be, 
from a religious standpoint, a good loyal believer. Whereas, since he 

13 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

made use of his thinking apparatus, discovered the imposter, and re- 
fused to be fooled by him, he is considered an unbeliever. These 
selfstyled apostles of a God or Gods know absolutely nothing about 
the God or Gods they preach to us. It is their way of making a living, 
dear reader, nothing more and nothing less. 

So much for not being a believer or not being religious. Let us 
now consider faith. Webster's dictionary defines faith as follows: 
Belief ; trust in another ; the assent of the mind to divine revelations ; 
fidelity ; a system of doctrines or tenets. Readers, look over the array 
of proof that there is absolutely nothing steadfast or deserving of con- 
isderation about the word faith. It simply implies that to have faith 
means to trust in or take for truth what someone else sees fit to con- 
vey to you, to bring your mind to that point where it is willing to 
accept something for truth without having any facts whatever to base 
your trust on. This shows us that to have faith means to imagine 
something, and nothing else. By defining faith, we have practically 
also a definition for belief or believer, for both faith and belief practical- 
ly stand for the same thing. A believer is one who accepts as true 
something not actually proven ; one who adheres to a religious faith. 
Again, my friends, we see that there is no importance at all in being a 
believer, for it signifies nothing more than that one takes something 
for granted without even having a semblance of proof. In other 
words, he brings his mind to imagine that something, which was told 
to him, is the truth. The last of the four words, unbeliever, is now 
easy to define. It simply means a person who refuses to take some- 
thing as the truth because someone tells him to imagine that it is so, 
and who demands proof for everything he is asked to accept as true. 
Can you blame him, religious reader? The whole can be summed up 
in these few words. The believer permits a fool or knave to make a 
fool of him ; the unbeliever refuses that pleasure to either the fool or 
the knave. 

Having shown, first, that religion is not the holy article some 
people would like us to believe it to be ; second, that to be a believer 
does not signify the goodness and holiness, and to be an unbeliever, 
the dishonesty and devilishness generally ascribed to each, I hope that 
the following will be read with less bias than it would have been, had 
I neglected to make this fact clear. We will now investigate at close 
range the question we have asked ourselves: Namely, is there in 
existence a conscious, supernatural personality, or God, who rules 
this universe, and we may add who demands and deserves to be loved 
and honored by all mankind ? It is my purpose to show that the one 
and only God of the Jews, the Christians, and the Mohammedans is 
in the same box with the manifold Gods of the Confucionists and 
Buddhists. 

In this chapter, however, I will content myself with exposing the 
one-God theory only, for two reasons : Firstly, it will make the word- 

14 



Supernatural Being or God? 

ing less confusing, and it will enable the reader to grasp the full im- 
port of the arguments more easily ; secondly, if I succeed in proving 
the one-God theory to be a man-invented delusion, then I have also 
proven the plural-God theory to be such. 

To approach this subject correctly, we must ask ourselves, first 
of all, this question : Have the advocates of the God theory ever told 
us with a reasonable certainty, what or who this supposedly great and 
grand something called God is? For surely it is the most natural 
thing in the world for anyone who is told about the existence of some- 
thing, the truth of which cannot be conveyed to him by any of his five 
senses, to ask what it is. In order that the charge may not be brought 
against me, that I am not presenting my opponent's side in a fair and 
impartial way, I will let them do the speaking themselves. The 
authority which I select will, I believe, be accepted by its friends and 
foes alike, as a worthy one. For, no matter how many crimes or 
errors may be attributed to the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic 
Church, it must be admitted, that the really important members there- 
of are a highly educated body of men, who, when speaking or writing 
in their own behalf for the public to read or hear, will spare no pains 
to make the case for themselves at least look its best. Yes, it is the 
very best they can produce, their masterpiece. I would have gladly 
selected the writings of an older creed as an authority, but I am not 
familiar with the Hebrew language, and by reading ever so many 
books, written and translated into both English and German, I find no 
answer to the question under discussion equal to the one I selected. 
I refer to the book entitled "Catholic Gems or Treasures of the 
Church" published with the consent of the Catholic church in the 
United States in 1888, approved by Pope Leo XIII, and endorsed by 
not less than twenty-five bishops, archbishops, and cardinals. 

The answer to our question appears in the above publication on 
page fifty-one under the heading "The Existence of God." Under a 
better heading one could surely not expect to find the information we 
are looking for, and what is more, the author thereof tells us right at 
the beginning that a clear and intelligent view of God is one of the 
first requisites for all of us at this day, of which I certainly approve. 
This statement, from their own lips, as it were, shows that they admit, 
surprising as it may seem, that a layman has a right to inquire into, 
and to request an explanation on matters of this kind. We have 
surely a right, after seeing the above bold statement in print, to expect 
an answer so plain and so accurate that no one at all able to read and 
think can fail to understand who this God, which they promise to 
describe, really is or of what he consists. Below you will find the 
article in question reproduced word for word under its own heading. 
I advise you to read it not once, but several times, to make sure you 
have grasped the full meaning thereof. 

15 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 

"A clear and intelligent view of God is one of the first requisites 
for all of us at this day ; and it is just this view which the Catholic cate- 
chism gives, and which all the wise men of the world seem unaccount- 
ably to miss. 

" 'God is unspeakable/ says Saint Augustine ; 'it is easier to say 
what he is not, than to express what he is. Neither the earth nor the 
sea is God. Nothing that is found in the sea or that moves through 
the air is God. What shines in the heavens, the stars, the sun, the 
moon, all this is not God. Heaven itself is not God. Would you 
know what he is? He is what eye hath not seen, ear hath not 
heard, what it hath not entered the heart of man to conceive.' The 
reason why it is impossible for us to express in sufficiently clear terms 
the idea of God springs from his infinite perfection, which elevates 
him above all that our senses and mind can grasp. Yet, we say that 
he is the greatest, the most perfect being, and it is as such that we con- 
ceive him ; but we must beware of classing him, as it were, with other 
beings. In order to give a more precise idea, we call God an infinitely 
perfect spirit, the Creator and the Sovereign Lord of heaven and 
earth; but in using these terms we must not liken him to spirits in 
whom thoughts, sentiments, and desires are subject to continual 
changes. God is a spirit, but a spirit alone of his kind. He is an in- 
finitely perfect spirit, which has existed without beginning, who is 
subject to no kind of change, who possesses existence in himself with 
all possible perfections in the highest degree/' 

Now that you have read the article, which starts in by telling us 
that it is, first of all, necessary to have a clear and intelligent view of 
God, I hope the explanation contained therein has not disappointed 
you. I hope that after you read that God is unspeakable, that he is 
neither the earth nor the sea, that he is not what is in the heavens, the 
stars, the moon, or the sun, the following emphasized sentence did 
not make you think that this great and reliable authority has explain- 
ed nothing, in fact, that it is impossible for him to explain anything on 
that subject because he knows absolutely nothing about it. "The 
reason why it is impossible for us to express in sufficiently clear terms 
the idea of God springs from his infinite perfection, which elevates) 
him above all that our senses and mind can grasp." The oftener I 
read the article in question, especially the above sentence and one or 
two others, the more it convinces me that that great explanation, 
which does not explain, has, on the vast majority of readers, if not on 
all, the same effect that it has on me. That is to say, they know just 
as much about the existence of a God after they have read, reread and 
studied it as they knew before. 

How could it be otherwise? By analyzing the contents of that 
article, we find that, while the author in the beginning boldly pro- 

16 



Supernatural Being or God? 

claims that it is absolutely necessary for all of us to have a clear and 
intelligent view of God, and after informing us of all the things God 
is not, he tells us that God is what eye has not seen, ear has not heard, 
what it has not entered the heart of man to conceive. Now, my 
friends, what do these few words mean? Let us see. When the 
author, after making that boastful declaration, plunges right in 
telling us all about God, he insinuates to every reader without 
telling it, in so many words, that he is going to furnish us with 
positive facts which he claims it is necessary for us to possess. 
Before he has one-third of his article written, he tells us that God is 
a something which no eye can see, no ear can hear, and no human 
heart can conceive. The so-called holy Scripture and many other 
religious books tell us of ever so many cases where God personally 
appeared and spoke to poor mortals of clay just like you and me. 
Therefore, either the author of this article or the holy Scripture is not 
telling us the truth. 

But let us not mind the hearing and seeing part of the explana- 
tion. The heart is the organ supposed to be most interested in 
anything religious or godly. The first and greatest commandment 
ever supposed to have been given was: Love the Lord, thy God, 
from thy whole heart. But how, my friends, can it be possible for a 
heart to love someone or a something which that very heart cannot 
conceive of or even imagine? 

The author of the article referred to above tells us that the heart 
of man cannot conceive God. Just try to either love or hate some- 
thing or somebody you cannot even place before your mind in an 
imaginary way. It is impossible, dear reader! Yet that is the rela- 
tionship in which the author of this article places God and us humans. 
The very next line of his supposed explanation begins by making a 
confession to the effect that it is impossible for even the author of the 
article to give a clear and intelligent view of God in his infinite per- 
fection and greatness. He is too high for our senses and minds to 
grasp. Remember, dear reader, this is said of the same God, who, 
according to the old testament, appeared and spoke personally to 
thousands of people on this earth; who gets angry and jealous just as 
we poor mortals do; who, in his fits of anger and jealousy, ordered 
men, women, and children to be slaughtered by the wholesale. This 
is said of the same God who, according to the new testament, descend- 
ed to earth in the shape of a human baby born of a human mother; 
who lived, suffered, and died among and for mere man. This is said 
of the same God who washed the feet of his apostles, not out of any 
necessity, but simply to show his own and to teach others humility; 
who, according to the new testament, associated with the poorest of 
mankind and even "sinners" ; this is said of the same God who, accord- 
ing to the teaching of the Catholic and other churches will listen to 
pleadings of mediators just like any human being. 

17 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

Think this over, religious reader. This same God who, according 
to the holy Scripture and the teachings and writings of his so-called 
representatives, has shown himself,, thousands of times, to be a being 
who is subject to most, if not all, the human weaknesses that the 
humblest among us is subject to is pictured to us by this religious 
author, as so far above everything that is human that even the most 
developed human mind cannot even form an imagination of his per- 
fection and loftiness. Remember, my friends, it is not I who class 
God as almost human, or as out of all reach of anything human. I 
form my conclusions from the writings and teachings of God's own 
supposed friends. 

In the same article, the author says : "Yet we say that he is the 
greatest, most perfect being, and it is as such that we conceive him." 
This must mean that, since we cannot conceive God in his real glory 
arid splendor, we lower him, in our estimation, to that point where our 
mind and heart can reach him, and as such, not as what he is, we 
conceive him. 

After repeating much of the above over and over again, the article 
closes by stating that God dwelleth in light inaccessible (not reach- 
able), that no man ever has or can see him, and that he can be known 
by us only as he reveals himself to us in some manner natural or 
super-natural. 

To my understanding, and I think that I have made a close study 
of all its vital points, the article, which was destined to prove the 
existence of a God has accomplished nothing of the kind. Instead, it 
has accomplished the very opposite it set out to do, namely, it has 
proven that it is impossible to paint in words even the faintest picture 
of that supposed supernatural personality called God. The author of 
the article begins by telling us that we should have a clear and dis- 
tinct view of God, then he confesses that it is impossible for any 
human being to form a conception of the loftiness of God, then he 
lowers God to a point where our heart and mind can reach or conceive 
him, then in closing he tells us again that God is inconceivable, that no 
one ever did or can see him, and that we can only know him as he re- 
veals himself to us in some natural or supernatural manner. 

The whole attempt to prove the existence of a God is so many 
words wasted in setting up an imaginary figure only to knock it down 
again. Not one solitary fact is established; not one reasonable con- 
clusion is reached. Now, my friends, think over and read the article 
again and again to make sure that you have grasped its full import, 
and then ask yourselves this question: Should not these learned 
clergymen, who claim they know, be able to give a better explanation 
of the existence and personality of that very God whom they claim to 
represent? That is, — if the God theory expounded by them rests on 
anything more substantial than imagination. 

18 



Supernatural Being or God? 

Before we abandon the book referred to as a source of informa- 
tion, I wish to mention that it tells us on page eighty-two that the 
Lord has a name, but that no one knows it but himself, and that it is 
even beyond the power of angels, who are supposed to be not mortal 
but immortal beings, to comprehend the excellence of God. This 
makes the question before us appear still more puzzling. 

Here I deem it advisable to assure the readers of these lines that, 
no matter how much my opinions about God or religion may differ 
from theirs, the opinions expressed herein are my honest convictions, 
and the right to express these convictions, I hope my readers will not 
deny me. I will also say that if my style of expression seems to any 
of the readers a little harsh or otherwise out-of-place, that I have no 
intention whatever of hurting the feelings of anyone, but that my only 
and highest aim is to bring out the whole truth in the best and most 
convincing way possible. 

We will now trace the footprints, so to speak, of this supposed, 
unspeakable, inconceivable, and mighty Being from the very time he 
is supposed to have made himself known to mankind, about 5912 
years ago, to the present day. According to the Jewish, the Christian, 
and also the Mohammedan so-called inspired books, God required six 
days to make this world, and when he had finished, he examined his 
handiwork, and he found it was good. Now, my friends, is it not 
strange that such an exalted and mighty Personality who, according 
to his representatives, holds the whole universe in the hollow of his 
hand, who can do anything he wishes by simply willing it to be done, 
should require six full days to do what we are given to understand he 
can do in less than one second? The fact of the matter is that no 
God as described to us would or did require six days to create this or 
any other world, and a God, with one-half the ability of the one de- 
scribed to us would not have to look over his handiwork to see if it 
was good, like any ordinary human mechanic would do. This story 
of the creation appears in the old testament because the author of that 
part of the Bible was not able to form a better imagination as to how 
the world in which he found himself could have come into existence. 
This supposed God is also said to have created the angels and placed 
them in heaven, where we are told wrong cannot exist, and still we 
hear shortly after their creation, that some wrong had managed to 
slip in, in all probability unbeknown to God, who then started house 
cleaning. We shall see as we go along what this supposed, infinite, 
righteous God did with those whom he drove out of his presence. 

How could this alwise God, who, they say, knows the future as 
well as the past, who knows before we are born every thought that 
we entertain all through our lives, make such a mistake in the first 
place as to allow evilminded angels in heaven? Then, after making 
man in his own image God permits one of these fallen angels, in the 
form of a snake, to tempt and conquer the parents of mankind, the 

19 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

first two specimens of those created after his own image. The eating 
of the apple, this alrighteous God recorded as a great sin against these 
two inexperienced newcomers, who knew no difference between right 
and wrong ; condemned both of them to suffering for the rest of their 
lives; and placed the husband as tyrant over his wife. Then he or- 
dained that all descendants of these two individuals, Adam and Eve, 
should everlastingly carry the stain of the guilt of their forefathers, 
even before they see the light of day. Now, my friends, give that 
matter just a little thought and see if you can come to the conclusion 
that any being, supreme or otherwise, with the feeling of a fair-minded 
savage would or could do such a thing. Just think of placing the 
stain of guilt for a transgression, supposed to be committed by some- 
one else several thousands of years before, on creatures of His own 
image, when still unborn. 

What would you, dear reader, for instance, think if a police officer 
called at your home and informed you that you were under arrest and 
had to serve a prison sentence of five years, because your great grand- 
father, your grandfather, or even your father had committed a crime 
before you were born? Any human being even with less than ordi- 
nary intelligence would call a proceeding of that kind an outrage and 
rightly so. History knows of no tyrant, the world over, who ever 
attempted to punish anyone for a wrong committed by someone else 
years before. And yet the so-called holy Scripture, as well as God's 
supposed representatives, tell us that a supposed righteous and loving 
God and Father does that very thing. Can you believe, religious 
reader, that there is a God, so-called, in existence who is a worse 
fiend and tyrant than any that ever lived on this earth? It is well 
worth your while to think over this. 

Very shortly after the creation we again see that God's handi- 
work is far from being perfect, for among the first two children from 
the first parents, one turns out to be a murderer. Later we find this 
supposedly alwise God requesting Abraham, of whom God is said to 
have thought very much, to take his son Isaac on a hill, build an altar, 
and make a human sacrifice of him, in other words, kill him. I can 
hear many readers shout in one chorus, "Yes, we know that God told 
Abraham to kill his son, but it was done to test Abraham's faith, and, 
while Abraham was told to kill his son, God prevented him from doing 
Isaac the slightest harm." My friends, that is just the thing that 
proves the point I wish to make. Why should an alwise Personality, 
a God, who, according to the teachings of the Jewish and Christian 
religions, at least, knows the future as well as the past, who can read 
our innermost thoughts, who knows every act and thought of our 
whole life before we see the light of day, require such a cruel test to 
learn whether Abraham was faithful or not. According to Gen. 
XXII-12, He said, "Lay not thy hand upon the lad, for now I know 
that thou fearest God." If this story be true, and it must be true when 

20 



Supernatural Being or God? 

we see it in that supposedly inspired book called "Holy Scripture," 
it not only makes little of God's supposed wisdom, but it also proves 
Him to be a vicious Personality. Just think, dear reader, if such a 
thing really happened, what that child must have thought of his 
father ever after, and how that father could ever have looked into the 
eyes of his child. 

In Genesis in Chapter VI Verse 5, 6, 7, we read that the Lord saw 
the wickedness of man, and he said, "It repenteth me that I have made 
them." To prove that he meant what he said, he sent a great flood and 
destroyed the lives of all creatures on earth, the innocent born and 
unborn babies with their guilty elders. Here we have proof again, and 
as plain as can be, that this supposedly alwise and almighty Person- 
ality or God from whom only good can emanate is, in reality, 
not as wise and infallible as we are asked to believe he is. This story, 
if true, and it must be so if we see it in the Holy Book, shows clearer 
than any as yet mentioned, that this supposed, all perfect Being is not 
all perfect, but is subject to change of mind, to getting angry, and is 
capable of making blunders, just as we poor mortals are. If such were 
not the case, he would surely not have found it necessary to feel dis- 
pleased with anything he had done, for he must have known that all 
this would happen, before he even started creating anything. The 
only conclusion we can come to, is that if a Supreme Being is really 
the Creator of mankind, He evidently did not know what the future 
would bring and is, therefore, not alwise or perfect. When he could 
no longer resist his anger, this supposedly righteous and merciful God 
who, we are told, gave to the world the commandment, "Thou shalt 
not kill," made deliberate preparations to save one family and a few 
animals, and then with his own hand, so to speak, killed every other 
living creature then on the face of the earth, innocent and guilty alike, 
by drowning them like so many rats. This, if true, shows two things. 
First, that in order to accomplish anything, this supposedly perfect 
God required time and material, like any of us poor creatures would 
to accomplish a like purpose. Second, that he is not only not righteous 
and merciful, but that, on the contrary, he has the nature of a brute. 
But let us not forget that God saved Noah, his family, and a pair of 
each kind of animals. The only reason one can conceive for this action 
was to save himself the trouble of creating the living creatures all over 
again. Perhaps he also feared that, although his first attempt at 
creating was not very successful, his second trial might prove still 
less so. 

According to Genesis VIII-2, as soon as the water had subsided, 
the Lord smelled sweet savor in his heart, and he said, "I will not again 
curse the ground for man's sake, or smite every living being, as I 
have done." Here you doubting Thomases, he admits that he com- 
mitted wholesale murder, but promises not to do the same thing again. 

21 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

Also remember, dear reader, that the Lord smelled sweet savor when 
the flood was over and his work completed. 

In the new testament in St. Matthew 11-12-15, we are told that the 
three wise men of the East, who came to see Christ, had been warned 
not to tell King Herod where the new-born baby was, and that they 
departed, at the advice of an angel, on a different route than they had 
come; that Joseph, the foster father of Christ, was informed by the 
same angel that Herod was seeking the life of Jesus, that he was 
ordered to take the baby and its mother, flee into Egypt, and stay 
there until after Herod's death. 

In this instance, this supposedly mighty Personality, this Master 
of heaven and earth, acted again the same as any ordinary human 
being. If the story be true, we have before us a case where a king 
hears that an heir for part of his domain has been born whom he in- 
tends to destroy before he becomes dangerous to him or his successors. 
Here it was God himself, according to the Christian religion, who 
needed protection. Did this mighty God protect this God-baby in 
some miraculous way, as you would expect a God to do? No, not at 
all. He acted just as you or I would act in a like position. The Lord 
asked the men, from whom Herod expected to learn where Christ could 
be found, not to reveal Christ's whereabouts, and, then told Joseph 
to take the child and its mother, flee into another country, and stay 
there until all danger was over. This is exactly what any human being 
who knows enough to come out of the rain could and would do. I 
can hear some readers say, "Well, what about it? The Christ- 
child was saved, was it not?" It is true they succeeded in 
saving the Christ-child, but that is not the information we are after. 
Every Christian over fifteen years of age knows that the church teaches 
us that Christ, the supposed second person of the Trinity, came on 
earth at the advice of the whole Trinity, for the purpose of sacrificing 
himself and opening the gates of heaven to mankind. Such an exalted 
Personality on such an important mission should surely not have to 
flee like a common criminal in order to preserve himself. While 
saving that one Baby, which, one would think, needed no saving, this 
supposedly righteous God permitted thousands of other babies to be 
slaughtered in an effort to find the Baby wanted. This, dear reader, 
is again the act of a supposedly righteous, mighty, and merciful God. 
The suffering which Christ permitted to be in flicted on himself, ac- 
cording to the Christian teaching, we shall pass over, for when we 
take his purpose into consideration, this was a necessity. But I consider 
it the height of folly and inconsistency on the part of a God, to even 
think of suffering and dying for anyone. 

No, my friends, I am not trying to insult what many hold dear, 
I am only using plain words and a plain way of expressing myself to 
enable every reader to grasp the full meaning which I am trying to 
convey, and I feel sure that you will agree with me, if you follow my 
arguments closely. The Christian religion teaches us that the sin of 

22 



Supernatural Being or God? 

Adam and Eve and the transgressions committed by the people after- 
ward provoked and grieved God so, that he shut the gates of heaven to 
all mankind, and that this condition prevailed for several centuries. 
Then, between the three-persons-in-one God, the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, an understanding had been reached that God should 
forgive the sins of the people and open the gates of heaven again. 
But it was equally well understood by these three persons in the 
Trinity that God would not forgive the people until a sacrifice had 
been made. His wrath would not diminish, and his heart would not 
soften until he had seen someone suffering. The Christian religion also 
teaches that God demanded such a great sacrifice that it would have 
been impossible, not only for one human being, but for the whole 
human race to make it, even if they wished to do so, so Christ, the 
second Person in the Trinity, offered to descend on this earth, take 
on human flesh and form, and, as part God and part man, be the 
sacrifice himself. 

In other words, God himself suffered and died in order that his 
own heart might be softened and his wrath effaced. My friends, I 
am sure that, no matter how religious you may be, you will agree 
with me that anything, considered as foolish or insane if committed 
by a human being of sound mind, should also be considered as such 
if committed by a supposed Supreme Being of far greater intelli- 
gence. To make this clear to you, let us suppose that a human being 
of sound mind who had been shamefully insulted, and who after 
suffering mental agony for a long time, decided that he wished to 
forgive those who had caused him this grief if a sacrifice be made, 
in other words, a ransom paid for the wrongs committed on him. 
Readers, what would you think of this human being if he would engage 
someone to inflict corporal punishment on him until he was nearly 
dead, and then say,, "I will now forgive those who caused me grief 
and consider them my friends again." I can hear you all say, "Oh, 
that person must be either a fool or insane to do such a thing," but 
that is just exactly what God did, if the story of Christ dying to re- 
deem mankind be true. 

Many of you will say, "We know God does things which seem 
foolish or unjust to us, but that is only because we do not understand 
the purpose he has in view." There can be no excuse for a silly or 
brutal act, no matter who the perpetrator or what the purpose may be. 
When religious people of all creeds think of a God, they picture to 
themselves a power or personality far superior in strength, dignity, 
and intelligence to any other living being in existence. From such 
a force or being, we have a right to expect a higher standard of mor- 
ality and a more practical application thereof than can be expected 
from mere man who, according to religious teachings, is very in- 
significant compared to God. 

23 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

For instance, from a college professor, we expect better moral 
conduct and less mistakes in arithmetic, writing, and so forth, than 
from a poorly educated person. My friends, if such a professor would 
commit unmanly acts, which he himself under pain of expulsion had 
forbidden his students to do, or if he would make errors of which 
his poorest scholar would feel ashamed, and excuse it all by saying, 
"You do not comprehend my purpose, or he would say when I do 
wrong it does not indicate the same thing as when you, who are not 
a professor, do it," what would you think of him ? Again I can hear 
you shout in chorus that the man is a fool or a knave and should not 
be permitted to hold that position. You decide correctly whenever 
you are asked to pass judgment on anything good or evil committed by 
a human being, but why not look at things in the same light when the 
doings of a supposedly supernatural Being are under investigation? 

The reason why most people are so reluctant in judging the deeds 
of a supposed God the same as they would those of a human being is 
that this supposed deity has been enveloped in so much mystery that 
the human mind has become confused and is unable and even un- 
willing to give a question of this kind a fair consideration. I believe 
I have shown in all fairness how unreasonable it would be for a human 
being to permit himself to be beaten until nearly dead in order that he 
might forgive his enemy; or for a learned and able person to excuse 
wrongs and errors committed by himself on the plea that his motives 
are not understood, and that acts committed by him are not indicative 
of the same thing as when committed by others of inferior rank and 
intelligence. Now let us go back to Christ sacrificing himself. If 
Christ had suffered and died to release mankind out of the clutches of 
another, then I would consider it a brave and noble act, but when one, 
especially a God, suffers and dies to soften his own heart and efface 
his own wrath, then I must conclude that such a Being, natural or 
supernatural, is either a fool or mentally deranged. Just think of it, 
you Christian readers ; according to the Bible, this great and powerful 
God decided centuries before it happened to give his own begotten son 
as a sacrifice, and proceeded in very much, if not exactly, the same way 
that any human being would do to accomplish his purpose. 

The true fact of the matter is that no God ever would or did do any 
such thing. Christ was a human being, just as you and I. His nature 
overflowed with love and righteousness, he saw the deceptive and 
criminal conduct of the then selfstyled representatives of a supposed 
God. He denounced them for this and advocated reform, just like 
many others before and after him have done. When the clerical and 
lay misleaders of the people saw that he made many converts, they 
considered him and his teaching dangerous to their material interests. 
Next they thought of ways and means for removing him, the obstacle, 
and his crucification was the final result. Crucification was then the 
mode of despatching reformers, like criminals, into the hereafter. 

24 



Supernatural Being or God? 

Had he lived a few hundred years later, he would have been hanged 
or beheaded, and had he lived in the middle ages he would, in all 
probability, have been burned at the stake. Christ died for the very 
same reason that many thousands of men and women have died before 
and since, namely, for sympathizing with the misled people and for 
telling the truth. 

I doubt very strongly that Christ was even religiously inclined, 
for both his teachings and the communistic mode of life he and his 
followers led, stamp the movement he brought into being, an eco- 
nomic or political rather than a religious one. The story that he 
was a God, that he had died to redeem mankind, and all the other 
mysterious things said about him, is a makeup, pure and simple, in- 
vented many years after Christ's death by those who intended to and 
did profit thereby. Very similar stories are told of other founders of 
religions. For instance, the Mohammedans believe that the coming 
of Mohammed was prophesied by an angel to his mother; that when 
he was born, a strong heavenly light enveloped his whole body; that 
when the time for him to begin his role as God's true representative 
on earth had come ; he heard the voices of angels who bid him to preach 
the new and only true gospel, that the Coran or the Holy Scripture 
was written in heaven and handed to Mohammed by God himself ; 
and last, but not least, that Mohammed, during his life, with an angel 
as a companion, visited all the seven heavens in which the Moham- 
medans as well as the Jews believe, and that he spoke to Abraham, 
Moses, Christ, and other earlier prophets, and to God himself. Had 
the heads of the Mohammedan church told their followers that 
Mohammed was a God, instead of a prophet, they would have be- 
lieved it and would worship him. Similar stories are told of Con- 
fucius, Buddha, and other religious leaders. So you see, Christian 
readers, that Christ is not the only founder of a religion, or what 
turned into one, of whom stories of a mysterious nature are told. 

The Rev. E. Cobham Brewer, L. L. D., in his work entitled 
"Dictionary of Miracles," which can be found in any public library, 
tells us that the belief in the divinity of Christ was first insisted upon 
in the fourth century. Now, my friends, if the apostles had believed 
Jesus Christ to be a divine being or God, do you think it would have 
taken until the fourth century or over three hundred years before this 
fact would have been recognized by his supposedly inspired representa- 
tives and made known to the world at large? 

The immaculate conception was made a dogma by Pope Pius IX 
in 1854. This shows that, until the nineteenth century, these holy and 
learned men were not sure whether Christ had been conceived by the 
Holy Ghost or in the old-fashioned way. I will here assure all Chris- 
tian readers that, although I speak very plainly, I have absolutely no 
intention of mocking Christ or his acts, or to show even the slightest 
disrespect for him. On the contrary, I will declare here and now that 

25 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

outside of my father and mother, and my nearest relatives, I know 
of no other person that ever walked on this earth of whom I think 
as highly as I do of Christ, for he seems to have been the most gentle 
and loving being that ever graced this earth, and there seems to be 
not even the slightest stain on his conduct in his thirty-three years 
of life. But if untruths have been told about such a noble character 
intentionally or through ignorance, there can surely be no harm in 
pointing out this fact and telling the real truth. Less than three 
hundred years ago, people were burned alive for teaching contrary to 
the general belief, that this world of ours is a globe and not flat, and 
that the earth moves and not the sun. To-day, every child over ten 
years old knows that what these men taught three hundred years ago 
is an established fact. You must admit, religious readers, that if the 
enemies of the truth had burned a million of such men, it would not 
have made that truth anything else but the truth. The same holds 
good when discussing the question as to whether Christ is divine or 
human. 

If the old and new testaments are inspired writings which, for 
argument's sake, let us admit, then every word written therein must 
be the absolute truth. If this is the case, I feel confident that to 
most of my readers, if not to all, I have proven that this supposed 
almighty, alwise, and perfect Being, called God, made little or no use 
of the qualities attributed to him, at least, for forty centuries after 
this earth is supposed to have been created. Since that time he has 
not been quite so familiar with the inhabitants of this earth. Yet 
we must not forget that, according to the Scripture and teachings 
of most every creed, God is also a righteous, merciful, and loving 
Father and Protector of those whom he created in his own image. 

The next question before us is whether this supposed righteous, 
merciful, and loving Father has shown himself more worthy of these 
attributes than he did of the others. In other words, is this supposedly 
infinite Being in that respect really what his so-called representatives 
picture him to us to be. I shall first consult the old and new testa- 
ments up to the time of Christ for an answer to the question before us. 
Then we shall search history to the present day, and apply common 
sense to all the information that we may find pertaining to this 
question. 

Before I begin the above task, however, I would like to call your 
special attention to the fact that all creeds, principally those advo- 
cating the one-God theory, teach us that this God, this Creator of 
heaven and earth, is overflowing with love, in fact, is love itself. By 
this they mean that he has such a magnificent nature and temperament 
that it is impossible for anything but love and good of all kinds to 
emanate from him. Granted as a self-evident truth that one who 
really loves will do no harm to the object of his love, or even to his 
enemies unless forced to do so, we may proceed to investigate whether 

26 



Supernatural Being or God? 

this supposed God is really what he is represented to be in that re- 
spect. 

In searching for his record as a righteous, merciful, and loving 
God and Father, we shall begin as near to the supposed creation as 
possible. In Genesis VIII-21, we are told that after the flood had 
subsided, the Lord smelled a sweet savor. This, dear reader, means 
nothing else than that the smell that arose from the thousands of 
dead human and animal bodies after the earth was dry again was 
pleasing to the Lord. My friends, do we not know that the cannibals 
and other beasts in human form have expressed themselves in the 
same manner after slaughtering others of their kind? How is this, 
then, from the mouth of a merciful and loving God? In Genesis 
IX-6, we are told plainer than in the ten commandments that thou 
shalt not kill, as follows: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man 
shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." This 
would make one think that this God was a bitter opponent of murder. 
We shall see. In Exodus XXXII-10, God says, "Now, therefore, let me 
alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I consume 
them." This, if true, and it must be for the inspired book says it is, 
shows again that God's excellence and perfection has been praised too 
highly, and that his nature and temperament are in reality like those 
of any ordinary human being. In Exodus XXXII-26-28, we are told 
that, after the Jews had made the golden calf, Moses, at the behest of 
the Lord, ordered the sons of Levy to take their swords and go 
through the camp and slay every man, his brother and every man, his 
companion and neighbor, and .that three thousand were killed. How 
will the preachers of all creeds and you, their misled followers, recon- 
cile this act of this supposed God through his servant Moses with the 
magnificent qualities attributed to him? According to Leviticus 
XXV-44-46, the good Lord tells the Jews that they shall take their 
bondsmen and bondsmaids, their slaves, not from among their own 
brethren, but from the heathen or the strangers that sojourned among 
them ; that the children of the strangers shall be their and their chil- 
dren's possessions forever. This shows that this supposedly righteous 
God believed in slavery. It further shows how true it is that he is no 
respecter of person when he ordained that some of those, whom he is 
said to have created in his own image, should be the slaves of others of 
their kind. Is that not exactly what brutish and uncivilized human 
beings would do and have done Think this over, religious reader. 

In Leviticus XXVI-22, the Lord said, "I will also send wild beasts 
among you, which shall rob you of your children and destroy your 
cattle and make you few in number." This is another example of 
God's merciful and loving disposition. Would a savage of the lowest 
type do any worse? In numbers XXXI-1-18, the good Lord orders 
through Moses the killing and ransacking of the midianites and then 
the killing of all male children which were brought into camp, so they 

27 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

would not grow up as warriors against the Jews. And this cowardly 
act was committed through the instrumentality of that very individual 
who, we are told, was saved from a like fate by the keen wit of his 
mother. Again, dear reader, the Lord commits murder and discrimin- 
ates. In numbers XXXV-19-27, the Lord tells us that the revenger 
of blood shall kill the murderer with his own hand, and that, if he 
kills him, he, the revenger, shall not be guilty of blood. I wonder 
if this God has any relation to the God Jesus Christ who, when asked 
by Peter if seven times was often enough to forgive his enemies, told 
him he should forgive seventy-seven, seven times, which is equivalent 
to saying, always. In Deuteronomy XXIII-1-3, God ordains that a 
bastard, an Ammonite and a Moabite, shall not enter into the con- 
gregation of the Lord. Even to his tenth generation, shall he not 
enter. That is to say, that a person born out of wedlock and people of 
this and that tribe or nationality shall not enter heaven to their tenth 
generation. Now, my religious friends, what justice is there in pun- 
ishing a poor creature and his descendants for a wrong which it was 
impossible for any of them to commit, but for which God alone can 
be held responsible, if he is the creator of mankind? For surely the 
bastard child is not responsible for its existence. Furthermore, what 
justice is there in punishing all the descendants of any tribe or nation- 
ality for ten generations for the sins of their forefathers. Is this any 
different than being punished by civil authorities for the crimes 
committed by your great, great grandfather? But then we are told 
that God's ways cannot be explored. 

The following is part of what the book of Joshua tells us the Lord 
did to give additional proof that his infinite, righteous, and loving 
disposition, of which we hear so much, is not a myth, but a reality. 
According to Chapter VI Verse 16-25, the Lord through Joshua, his 
servant, orders the children of Israel to enter the city of Jericho, and 
kill men, women and children, except Rahab the Herlot who had pro- 
tected the Jewish spy and her relatives. The cattle, silver, gold and 
brass were put into the treasury of the Lord. If this story be true, and 
it must be if we see it in the Bible, it shows that this supposed God 
has more respect for cattle, gold and silver than for human beings. 
In Chapter VII, we are told of the stoning to death of Achan by 
Joshua's orders for taking Babylonish garments and silver, which had 
been accursed. The taking of anything, especially gold, that, accord- 
ing to the selfstyled representatives of God, belonged to the treasury 
of the Lord, always was, and is, to this day, considered a great crime 
which has since been often and severely punished. 

In Chapter VIII-1-31, the Lord commanded Joshua to slay the 
king of Ai and all his people, and ordered that not one soul shall be 
saved. Of the cattle and spoils, the children of Israel were to take 
possession. Joshua did as ordered and used the meanest trickery to 
accomplish his purpose. Again, religious reader, the cattle, gold and 

28 



Supernatural Being or God? 

silver was spared, while humans were slaughtered at the command of 
God. The Holy Book tells us that on this occasion twelve thousand 
were killed, that the city was burned, and that after the slaughter, 
Joshua, the servant of the Lord, built an altar and brought an 
offering to the Lord. What a mockery, dear reader, if that is true, 
and what kind of a God must he be ! Chapter IX tells us of Joshua 
slaying the inhabitants of severel other cities. The good Lord was so 
pleased with the work Joshua and his people did, that he promised to 
give to the Jews all the land that formerly belonged to the people who 
had been murdered. Since that time much land has come into the 
possession of religious people, especially the leaders, in very much the 
same way. 

The Bible tells us that on another occasion, God let hail stones 
rain on the enemies of the Jews and killed them. In Chapter X-40, 
we read, "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills and of the vale, 
he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the 
Lord of Israel commanded." Here, dear reader, the so-called Holy 
Scripture tells us that Joshua and his people killed and robbed others 
of their kind, as the Lord of Israel commanded. How is that for 
telling you in unmistakable terms that the supposed God you believe 
in not only endorsed, but ordered wholesale murder to be committed. 
In Chapter XI-23, we are informed that Joshua divided the land given 
to them by the Lord among the twelve tribes. They surely deserved 
it for obeying the Lord God as they did. We are also told that the 
land then rested from war. How could it be otherwise, dear reader, 
when there were no people left with whom to fight? Chapter 1-4: 
"And Juda went up, and the Lord delivered the Cananites and the 
Perizzites into their hands and they slew of them in Bececk ten thou- 
sand men." So you see, religious reader, this supposed righteous and 
loving God, not only assisted the murderers in their work, but he 
delivered the victims right into their hands. In Chapter II-2 we read 
this, "And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; 
ye shall throw down their altars." Here this supposedly just and 
loving God and Father orders the people of one nationality and creed 
not to make friends with people not of their nationality and creed, but 
that, on the contrary, they shall be hostile toward each other. This 
proves again that he is a respecter of person, and that he cares little 
to see the brotherhood of man or peace and good-will on earth es- 
tablished. 

In Chapter 11-20, we are told that the Lord was very angry at the 
Jews because they had ceased to obey him, after he had helped them 
to pillage and murder. Here, dear reader, you have the Bible for proof 
that this supposed, perfect, divine Being gets angry just like the most 
imperfect human being. Chapter IX-23 : "Then God sent an evil 
spirit between Abimelech and the men of Schechem ; and the men of 
Schechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech." Here we discover 

29 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

how this supposedly righteous God makes use of the fallen angels who 
arc supposed to be the evil spirits. Just think of it, readers, this 
supposed, all-powerful, perfect, righteous God and loving Father 
stoops to the level of the meanest scoundrel by employing treacherous 
characters to sow the seed of discord among those whom He is said 
to have created in His own image. What would you think of a human 
father who would employ evil characters to bring discontent among his 
own children ? No, my friends, I am not mocking God. The above is 
just what this supposed God has proven himself, if what we read in 
the supposedly Holy Scripture be true, and he should be judged 
accordingly. In Chapter X-7, we read this : "And the anger of 
the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands 
of the Philistines and into the hands of the children of Ammon." 
Here we see the Lord God turning his back on the Jews and placing 
them in the power of their enemies. By this he proves that he 
did not help and protect the Jews before because they deserved 
it as a people, but simply because they were on good terms with 
him at that time, and when that friendship ceased, he did just 
as any unscruplous member of the human race would do. It also 
shows what the perfection and loftiness of this supposed God 
amounts to. Chapter X-16 : "And they put away their strange gods 
and served the Lord, and His soul was grieved for the misery of 
Israel." Again we have proof that this supposed, perfect Being is 
subject to most, if not all, the weaknesses we poor mortals are subject 
to. In Chapter XI-21, we find that after the Jews had humbled them- 
selves^ He immediately began to help them slay and plunder again. 
This supposed God seems to be a warlord, who is not contented, un- 
less he sees people suffering and blood flowing. In Chapter XVI- 
28-29, Samson asked the Lord for strength to enable him to avenge 
himself on the Philistines for the loss of his eyes. The Lord gave 
him strength, and he slew more than ever before in his life. This 
again discloses weakness and disregard for human life on the part 
of that supposed, mighty, and righteous God. 

In "Books of Kings," Chapter XI-3-14, we are told that when the 
seven hundred wives of Solomon turned his heart away from the Lord, 
He stirred up an adversary to punish Solomon. Again he uses the 
same contemptible methods that the lowest types of humans would 
use. My dear reader, I could recite several times as many instances 
from that supposedly inspired book, called the Bible, to prove that 
this so-called God is not what he is pictured to us to be, but I do not 
wish to try your patience any more than necessary. In fact, I would 
have liked very much to enumerate one-half as many as I did, but 
I also wanted to make sure that not one reader of these lines could 
honestly say that the evidence produced was not sufficient to prove 
what I started out to prove. Having read and perhaps reread the 
above reproductions from the alleged Holy Scripture, of which every 

30 



Supernatural Being or God? 

word is supposed to be inspired and consequently true, you will feel 
somewhat perplexed. You will make your surprise known something 
like this : "I did not know that such as that was written in the Holy 
Scripture. Our preacher never told us that the Scripture contained 
anything of such a character, and I cannot believe that God ever did 
these things." Right here, religious reader, remember that not I, 
but the inspired Book, called Bible, tells you that God did the evil 
things mentioned herein. The reason your preacher did not tell you 
is because he does not want you to have knowledge of anything that 
might, yes, positively would become detrimental to him and his kind 
in their line of business. A little reasoning applied to the knowledge 
gained must convince every honest person that if God is what the 
clergy represent Him to be, the supposed Holy Scripture cannot be the 
true word of God. On the other hand, if the Scripture is the holy and 
inspired Book it is supposed to be, then this God, as preached to us, 
is not the infinite, righteous, merciful, and loving Father and Protector 
the clergy try to make us believe he is. This in turn proves that 
these supposedly holy men and representatives of God on earth are 
not telling the truth. But if the Bible and the clergy do not im- 
part the truth, the theory of a personal, infinite, righteous, and 
loving God collapses. It is not very likely that any human being 
of sound mind, and at all capable of thinking for himself, would believe 
that any supernatural Being, deserving of the name God, which 
implies something far above the ordinary, would do or permit to be 
done any of the unjust and cruel acts attributed to this supposed God 
by that Book of all books, called the Bible. 

The Catholic clergy have always forbidden their followers to read 
the Bible, especially the old testament, and they knew the reason why. 
They are wise for their own good. The Protestant clergymen who, 
until of late, loudly proclaimed that the people were entitled to read 
the entire word of God, as they call it, have also become alarmed lest 
their followers might discover the real truth, and in fear of the conse- 
quences, started in, some time ago, to issue, instead of the entire Bible, 
the new testament only. The reading of the new testament by their 
followers is not so dangerous to the interest of religious leaders as that 
of the old testament. 

Now, friends, let us condense the evidence we have gathered up 
to this point in our search for the record of this supposedly perfect 
God, and see what it discloses to us. When we quote from the sup- 
posedly Holy Scripture to prove a fact, we must assume that the 
information contained therein is the truth and nothing but the truth. 
Keep this in mind, dear reader. The facts that God required six days 
to create this universe, and did not know it was good until he had 
examined it ; that he never mentioned to the inspired men who wrote 
the Bible that the sun, moon and stars were planets, but instead must 
have told them that they were lights to illuminate this planet called 

31 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

Earth; that he did not know until the sin so-called was committed, 
that Eve would eat the apple, nor that Abraham was faithful until he 
had tested him ; that shortly after the creation, he repented that he 
had made man, when he saw man's wickedness; that he required 
several months time to prepare for the saving of a few humans and 
a few animals, just as any human being; and other facts mentioned 
must prove to anyone, who has not made up his mind that he will 
not be convinced, that the God, preached to us, is not by far the in- 
finite, mighty, alwise, and unchangeable Personality that he is rep- 
resented to be. The facts that he drowned in the flood innocent 
children who surely had not committed any sin or crime with their 
guilty parents ; that he cursed Adam and Eve for disobeying him, after 
he had permitted an evil spirit to tempt them; that he commanded 
the Jews through their leaders to slaughter men, women and children, 
until the last person in that part of the country had been extermin- 
ated ; that he gave orders to the Jews to make slaves of the children 
of the strangers ; that he employed evil spirits to sow discord among 
men and tempt them to evil deeds ; that he permitted the killing of 
all the children over one year old by Herod in an endeavor to find 
the Christ-child whom he had sent to safety ; and other acts of a 
similar nature prove conclusively that this supposed God is not the 
perfect, righteous, merciful, and loving Personality that He is rep- 
resented to us to be. 

Should any of my readers say that we are not able to interpret 
the Holy Scripture, and that there is some doubt as to whether God 
ordered the killing and ransacking of so many people, innocent and 
guilty alike, I will say that with the proof, in such plain words, before 
us, we need not be interpreters, and that the authority we quote leaves 
no room for doubt ; that is, if we consider the Bible an inspired book. 
Readers, listen to this again : "So Joshua smote all the country of 
the hills and dales, he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord 
God demanded." Also this : "Then God sent an evil spirit between 
Abimelech and the men of Schechem." The above is surely plain 
enough for anyone to understand without needing any interpretation. 
I must remind you again, religious reader, that it is the supposedly 
Holy Scripture which accuses God of these many unholy deeds, and 
not I. If you ask me what my opinions are in that respect, I will 
tell you that I am convinced that the real facts are as follows: This 
universe was not created by a personal God, neither did it come into 
existence at the time mentioned in the supposed Scripture or any other 
religious book of any and all creed in existence. 

Science has proven beyond a doubt that this earth is millions of 
years old, and there is written evidence in existence to show that 
eastern nations had civilization over seven thousand years ago, while, 
according to the Scripture, the world was created less than six thou- 
sand years ago. If an almighty, alwise, and just God, as described to 

32 



Supernatural Being or God? 

us, had been the Creator of this planet called earth, he would not have 
required six days to make it, and our earth would surely be a better 
one than it is. Some of the incidents recorded in the old and new 
testaments may be true historical occurrences. Many others are 
fictitious, or imaginations which developed in the brain of ignorant 
and superstitious people. For instance, the flood we read of may have 
really taken place, although not to the extent that the Bible and the 
Coran describe it to us for floods are more or less common occurrences 
even to this day, and they generally come without much warning. 

The treatment of Joseph by his brothers; the wise judgment of 
Solomon ; the building of the tower of Babel, to a lesser extent and for 
other reasons than recorded ; the saving of the child Moses, and his 
leading the Jews out of Egypt, in not exactly the same way as de- 
scribed; the birth of Christ in any other place than a regular house 
and his crucification ; and many other recorded occurrences may have 
really happened. I say may have, for it is possible, but is is not proven 
beyond a doubt that they did happen. The warfare of the Jews among 
themselves, and the slaughtering and ransacking they are reported to 
have done ; their prosperous conditions and their suffering may be all 
or partly true. But the allegation that a God directed and helped 
them to kill and rob, and that he sent them prosperity and suffering 
as a reward or punishment for obeying or disobeying is positively not 
true, for no personality or power, deserving of the name God, would 
commit or omit any act of which any fairminded human being, yes, 
in many cases, savages and animals would be ashamed. 

Friends, if you look back to the time when our forefathers were 
yet savages and study the developments up to the present day, you 
will find that in every century, in the same proportion that the in- 
telligence of the human race increased, they modified the punishments 
inflicted and even the methods of putting people to death. In other 
words, to the extent that the intellect of man developed, his feeling 
toward his fellow-man became more humane, and the desire ripened 
within him to subject his enemies, or criminals to less suffering than 
before. In the last fifty years or so, corporal punishment in the army, 
navy and prisons has been abolished, and the treatment of those who 
might deserve other punishment has so improved, that people of only 
a hundred years ago would consider themselves treated royally toward 
what was in store for them for a similar offence in their own age. 

To-day in all civilized nations, delinquents and criminals, as a 
general rule, are not only humanely treated, but they are considered 
mentally ill, and their evil acts a result of that condition. In conse- 
quence thereof, they receive medical, as well as corrective treatment. 
All civilized or nearly civilized states and nations have abandoned 
the old and cruel ways of dispatching a murderer into the hereafter. 
Legislators and statesmen are devising more humane methods, those 
which mean the least possible suffering for the one who is to pay the 

33 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

death penalty. In several states in the United States and in several 
European countries, the people have advanced still further. There 
the death penalty has been abolished entirely. Even in warfare, 
which is in itself nothing more or less than deliberate wholesale mur- 
der, great improvements in late years have been made in the treatment 
of prisoners and the wounded. Here we see how at least a large 
portion of the human race are reaching the topnotch of their in- 
tellectual development and, consequently, are losing much of their 
brutal nature and gaining much of the humane. While thus mere 
man has improved wonderfully in the last few centuries in his 
conduct toward his fellow-man, we are asked to believe that a per- 
sonal, supreme Being which we call the infinite, all-powerful, righteous, 
merciful, and loving God and Father, has been in the past a mere 
brute and has remained so to this very day. 

To prove that my last assertion is true, I shall furnish evidence 
in abundance. Before we proceed, I must call your attention to the 
fact that the supposed Scripture tells us, and the preachers of most, 
if not all, the creeds in existence teach us that not so much as a hair 
falls from our head without the knowledge and will or consent of God. 
The Mohammedans and one or two Christian denominations even 
teach that God has predestined before we are born what is to become 
of our soul so-called after physical death has set in. By keeping the 
above in mind and by applying a little of the ordinary common sense 
to the information on this point, we may find in the pages of history 
since Bible time, we will continue our investigation and make our 
deductions. History tells us that for several hundred years after 
Christ's crucification, the early Christians were hounded, tortured, 
and murdered by those who believed in idol worship, and who were 
in power at that time. Just as people now assemble to see a prize 
fight or a ball game, the people, then assembled to witness other human 
beings being torn to pieces and devoured by wild and hungry animals. 
Those idol or plural-God worshippers had a religion and believed in 
supernatural spirits or powers of some kind. They also believed that 
their Gods were the true Gods, and that all those who did not worship 
the same deities in the same way as they did were wrongdoers who 
offended the true Gods. They also believed that these brutal exhibi- 
tions were demanded by and were pleasing to their Gods. In this, 
they were not much different from advocates of the one-God theory. 
We call these people brutes, and their religion demoralizing, terms, 
which, no doubt, they deserve. Yet what must we think of this one 
true, righteous, merciful, and loving God without whose knowledge 
and consent this could not have happened? This supposed almighty, 
alwise, and just God permitted his faithful servants to be tortured and 
murdered without as much as raising a finger, so to speak. 

In other words, this supposed, righteous, and loving Heavenly 
Father was looking calmly on, while these bloody tragedies were 

34 



Supernatural Being or God? 

enacted. According to his supposed representatives, as well as the 
Bible, he was able, but unwilling to stop them. A human father 
guilty of such conduct would be called a brute. What then shall we 
call a Heavenly Father who is guilty of the same conduct? Many 
of you will undoubtedly say, "Oh. that is not fair. God is not a brute, 
he permits these things to happen in order that he may test the faith 
of his own and to see to what depravity the unbeliever will stoop, 
and then rewards and punishes accordingly. My friends, in order to 
make the trend of my argument still clearer to you, I ask you to 
imagine a human father of a number of children, looking on while 
several of them are being tortured in the most cruel manner by an 
enemy whom he could easily prevent from doing so. When you have 
placed that picture before your mental eyes, think just a little. Then 
tell me what you would think of such a human father, who would 
excuse his non-interference by saying that he wanted to test his chil- 
dren's loyalty, and that he would reward and punish later as deserved. 
I know that you would condemn the action or rather inactivity of 
this human father in the most emphatic terms. Yet is not a super- 
human Father, who knows everything in advance, and, therefore, needs 
no tests of the good or evil-minded, more guilty than a human father, 
who is not alwise, and who is subject to error and weakness? Think 
over this, religious reader. 

I have dwelt on this link in our chain of evidence longer than it 
seems at first glance necessary. But the necessity thereof will un- 
doubtedly become apparent to you as we go on. The millions, yes, 
billions of innocent people, who were enslaved, tortured, and killed 
since Christ for no other reason than that the members of the human 
race were brutes, and that those who suffered were either mentally, 
physically, or numerally weaker than their torturers, give evidence 
of this supposed God's righteousness. The evil deeds committed by 
the representatives of the one and only God in the Middle Ages are 
as dark as those recorded in the old testament. The slaughtering of 
Christians, Jews and Heathens by the Mohammedans in the name of 
Allah, the compassionate and merciful ; the religious wars in Europe 
in the name of that merciful and loving God of the Christians; the 
torturing and murdering during the Inquisition, which lasted for 
fully six hundred years, in the name of that lowly and loving Christ, 
who was always the Friend of the poor and downtrodden, perpetrated 
with the knowledge and will of him who is perfect and from whom 
only good can flow, give additional evidence of how this supposed 
God made use of the noble attributes ascribed to him. The killing 
of from twenty thousand to thirty thousand Protestants or heretics by 
Catholics in the Bartholomew Massacre in France in 1572; the tor- 
turing and killing of Catholics by Protestants in England and the 
killing of Protetsants by Protestants in Germany, England and Amer- 
ica ; and many other retail and wholesale murders committed in the 

35 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

name and with the knowledge and consent of this supposedly great 
and merciful Being again proves that if such a God is in existence, 
he is in reality a far different Personality from what the preachers of 
all creeds represent him to be. When we permit some of the many 
and dreadful catastrophes of only the last half century to pass before us 
we cannot help but come to the conclusion that if there is a God in 
existence who is all-powerful and alwise, that he is surely anything 
but just and merciful. Take, for instance, the Johnstown flood, the 
floods in France, the earthquakes in Italy and elsewhere, the floods 
and storms in the United States lately, and when we consider the 
awful loss of lives which in every case included innocent children, 
which this alwise, powerful, infinite, and righteous God not only not 
prevented, but to which he granted his consent, we must positively 
lose all respect for him. When we think of the many shipwrecks with 
the terrible loss of lives, of which the Slocum and Titanic disasters 
are the most recent and most appalling instances, we must surely ask 
ourselves, "Is it possible that a conscious, supernatural Personality 
with half the qualities the God preached to us is supposed to posses, is 
in existence at all." 

Recall that Slocum disaster to your mind just for a few minutes. 
You will see a picture like this : A ship is on fire, and over one thou- 
sand women and children, who were contributing their mite to the 
building or maintenance of a so-called house of God, are losing their 
lives either through fire or through drowning. Many a husband and 
father lost his wife and all his children. If my memory serves me 
right, there was not one family represented on that excursion which 
did not lose one or more of its members. Now, dear reader, 
picture to yourself the sorrow this caused. Just think of it, whole 
families wiped out ; and they were not impious men and women on a 
drunken orgy or something similar, but good God-fearing people, 
mostly innocent children who thought they were working in God's 
cause. According to the Holy Book and preachers of the one-God 
theory at least, all this happened with the knowledge and consent of 
that supposedly mighty, righteous, and merciful God of whom we hear 
so much. 

Now, dear reader, picture to yourself a supernatural Personality 
of that description, and then ask yourself this question : "Is it possible 
that a Supreme Being or God of superhuman wisdom and powers, 
if really in existence, could be guilty of such gross neglect, and, if 
so, what must we think of him?" Before and since that time, I have 
heard supposedly intelligent Christians and Jews, and even a number 
of clergymen of different creeds and denominations say that the Lord 
had sent this and other catastrophes purposely as a punishment for 
them and a warning for others. If this is true, the good Lord is still 
at his old tricks of forbidding murder by retail and ordering it by 
wholesale. In other words, he is to-day as of old a bloodthirsty 
brute. 

36 



Supernatural Being or God? 

I can hear many of you say that the company or the captain was 
at fault here, and not God. In reply, let me tell you, my friends, that if 
there is a God as described to us in existence, the Creator of all the 
universe, a righteous and loving Father to all mankind, almighty and 
alwise, who holds our lives and destinies in the hollow of his hand, we 
have a perfect right to expect from him some practical evidence of 
the mighty and loving side of his nature in a case of this kind, no 
matter who is at fault. Had, on the other hand, every one of those 
who died been saved by the timely arrival of help of some kind, when 
all hope of saving them had been given up, I feel certain that most, 
if not all religious readers would say that it was the work of God, that 
no one but God could have saved them. Why not hold this supposed 
God also responsible for the dreadful things that happen under his 
very eyes and with his consent, if you give him credit for all the good 
that happens? If a mechanic were doing some good work for you, I 
am sure you would not praise him for the good work he did, and when 
that same individual ruined something, deny that he was responsible 
for the bad work his hands had performed. Let us judge this sup- 
posed, almighty, and alwise God likewise. 

In the Titanic disaster even more of God's children, supposedly 
created by him in his own image, lost their lives apparently through 
the recklessness of its officials. A majority of those lost did not even 
get a chance to fight for safety, or even a last look at the blue 
sky, but were drowned like rates in a trap. The agony of those on deck 
of the ship, who saw their chance of safety grow less and less, and of 
those torn from their loved ones, must have surely been terrible ; but 
what must have been the feelings of those poor people, including many 
innocent children, who were locked in the steerage and not able to 
make the faintest effort to save themselves. Out of the sixteen hun- 
dred who perished, surely one thousand were steerage passngers, of 
which at least nine out of every ten were of a religious nature, who 
sent their fervent prayers and appeals for help to that supposed, 
mighty and merciful God. Just picture to yourselves the situation 
these people were in and the heartrending appeals for a taste of this 
supposed God's righteousness and mercy that must have gone up from 
their hearts and lips. These people had been taught that, if they 
put their trust in God, they would never be deserted, but, they, like 
many others before and since, learned that the wooden or stone images 
of the pagans would have answered their prayers as well as this 
supposed, mighty, righteous, one and only true God did. 

Now picture to yourself this supposed, mighty, and loving God 
and Father, not only looking on without helping, but permitting this 
awful suffering to be inflicted with his consent. I know, dear reader, 
you cannot conceive of such a God ; neither can I. The fact of the 
matter is this : No God was responsible for the suffering and the 
loss of lives on either of these two or any similar occasions, and no 

37 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

God was responsible for the saving of a few, nor responsible if all 
would have been saved as if by a miracle. There is no such Supreme 
Being or Godly Personality in existence, and, therefore, none can be 
credited with either the good or the evil which manifests itself in this 
world. By this time many readers will say, "I admit that you have 
at least greatly diminished our respect for and belief in God's might, 
wisdom and righteousness. But how about the plants, trees, or even 
the grass that grows? That surely cannot be without the assistance 
of a power, other than human, and a guiding hand." In answer, I will 
state that I never denied that there is a force in existence in this 
universe through which good or evil results are produced. But I do 
deny emphatically that there is a conscious and intelligent Personality 
or Force of any kind in existence that directs the elements of nature 
in this universe. Having this in mind, we will proceed. 

When you take yeast, water and flour, and mix them, you will 
behold something which would have been impossible to happen if 
the yeast had not been dissolved, and the water and flour mixed with it, 
namely, the rising of the dough. No matter how much of each you 
might have in one room, or how near you place them to each other, it 
would not bring that result, unless all three are mixed in the proper 
way. In this instance, the material substance, called dough, expands 
to four or five times its original size without any godly or material 
assistance. This proves that the natural qualities inherent in these 
seemingly dead bodies are the only factors which are responsible for 
this apparently miraculous feat. For another example, take medicine 
or anything else, which requires the mixture of two or more in- 
gredients to obtain the desired result. In many cases, any one of the 
ingredients used, which when compounded, produce a beneficial effect, 
if used singly, would be either of no use at all or perhaps injurious. 
Here we see, dear reader, that two or more material substances, ap- 
parently dead objects, can be made to produce astonishing results for 
good or evil when mixed with each other. It must be remembered 
that each one of these ingredients, or parts we have reference to, is 
a very innocent looking object, and that it required many thousands 
of years for the human mind to discover the qualities that each pos- 
sesses, and how they could be made use of. Much, that a hundred and 
even fifty years ago was considered imposible for anyone except a 
God, is to-day accomplished through human energy and considered 
a very ordinary phenomenon. For instance, if a hundred years ago 
anyone had proclaimed that the apparently dead substance of a fowl's 
egg could be turned into a living creature through any other method 
than the old-fashioned one, he would have been considered a blas- 
phemer. The same can be said of the incubator to save human life, 
the talking machine, and many other facts discovered within the last 
century. 

The gardeners have in their hothouses plants and flowers in full 

38 



Supernatural Being or God? 

bloom, when, on the outside, under the direct guidance of the Lord 
so-called, all plant life is dead or asleep. Here we see, dear reader, 
that where this supposed, almighty God is supposed to rule, plant life 
is dead or asleep, while in the hothouses where the proper climate is 
artificially provided through human energy, plant life is growing and 
blooming to its heart's content. How can this be possible if a God, 
who alone is responsible for everything that grows is really in ex- 
istence? Surely if a God, as described to us, were in existence and 
intended that all plant life should be dead or asleep for a certain 
period of time, he would not permit mere human beings to make his 
intention null and void by making plant life grow and bloom through 
human agencies. The true facts of the matter are these: The tem- 
perature on the outside being contrary to the kind required to put life 
in plants, trees, et cetera, the gardener manufactures the required 
temperature artificially. In other words, he installs a little summer 
for himself. The fact that this is possible proves again that the 
forces of nature can in some instances at least be subjected to the will 
of mere man, and that no concious, supernatural Being or God is the 
ruler of the universe. 

A gardener can take a white flower, and in the period of two or 
three years turn it into a red or blue one, and turn fruit and vegetables 
into an entirely different kind. Not very many years ago, this would 
have been considered a human impossibility, and anyone who had 
thought otherwise would have been called a fool or a blasphemer. 
The fact that you must plant in the right kind of ground, at a certain 
time in the year, and that the ground must be turned over and nour- 
ished from time to time with manure or some artificial fertilizer is 
evidence that it requires more than a mighty Supreme Being to make 
the ground bear fruit. For instance, let an experienced farmer and 
one inexperienced sow side by side in the same kind of ground, with 
the same kind of seed, and watch the result. These two people have 
the same quality of ground, the same quantity and quality of seed or 
plants, and plant at the same time, and the same supposedly mighty 
God is over both of their fields, and still the result is much different. 
How can that be possible, dear reader, if a God as described to us 
is the all-important factor in nature's events. 

A priest was once asked by a farmer to bless an acre of potatoes 
to make them grow better. After looking the field over, the priest 
told the farmer that blessing would do no good; that if he wanted 
potatoes or anything else to grow better in that particular ground, 
he would have to put manure there. This was a truthful priest. If 
you sow or plant something which requires loose or sandy ground, in 
solid or stony ground, or vice versa, you will find that your labor is in 
vain. This then would indicate that that supposedly mighty God is 
not able to make the same thing grow everywhere. This surely 
shatters the claim of his mightiness. No matter how full of blossoms 

39 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

a fruit tree might be, if the insects or a frost destroys the fruit-bearing 
substance, there will be no fruit. If a mighty and intelligent Power 
or God is the producer, the cause of everything that grows, insects, 
frost, loose or stony ground, and especially manure, surely should be 
no obstacle for him in producing good results. Think over this, re- 
ligious reader. Next I will endeavor to show that a Power or Force 
need not posses consciousness and intelligence to accomplish good or 
evil results, and, furthermore, that the elements of nature are not 
directed by a force gifted with consciousness and intelligence. 

This fact can be easily recognized, which the following will show : 
If a child, hardly able to conceive what it is doing, would throw some- 
thing at you, you could very easily detect the intelligence, may it be 
ever so feeble, displayed in connection with the act of throwing. You 
will notice that the object thrown by the child was dispatched in a 
certain direction, and that the act had a certain object in view. A 
soldier firing a gun or cannon is supplying the force behind the bullet 
only in a mechanical sense, yet it can be noticed that intelligence was 
used in connection with the act of forcing the bullet out at the proper 
time and in the right direction. If you intended to hit a certain per- 
son among a number of others, you would not deal the blow, until you 
had found the person you intended to hit. Nor would a dentist who 
had one tooth to pull from among many, blindly apply his pincers, 
and then furnish the force necessary to extract. Neither you nor the 
dentist would do any such thing. You would make sure that when 
the blow is struck, it will hit the right party, and the dentist will in- 
vestigate first and make sure that he takes hold of the right tooth 
before pulling. 

This might be called supplying intelligence to the force behind 
the action and can be easily recognized as such. A bomb or dyna- 
mite, which explodes and kills or destroys everybody and everything 
near it, is also a force, but it is not directed by intelligence. Although 
both of these explosives were manufactured by applying intelligence 
to action, yet not the slightest consciousness or intelligence is used in 
bringing its forces into action. For instance, if you planted a bomb 
or dynamite for the purpose of killing John Smith, whom you expected 
to pass a certain spot at a certain time, and Jim Jones would happen 
to pass instead when the explosion would occur, Jim Jones, and not 
John Smith, would be injured or killed. While, on the other hand, 
if you stationed a man with a gun or club in his hand at a certain spot 
to hurt or kill John Smith, a hundred other people could pass that 
spot at the time you expect Smith to appear, but none except John 
Smith would be in danger of getting hurt. The reason for this is 
that the force in the gun is directed by intelligence, while that of a 
bomb or dynamite is not. The fact that the person, who plants either 
of the explosives with the object of killing others, is the first to get 
out of its way, is the best evidence that he knows that intelligence 

40 



Supernatural Being or God? 

plays no role there. On the other hand, the party who stations a man 
with a gun or club at a certain place with directions to hurt or kill a 
certain person is not afraid to stand for hours, and at the very time 
the force is put into action, right alongside of the force designed to 
kill another. He knows that, as the force in the gun is being directed 
by intelligence, the bullet will only hit the one for whom it is intended. 

Electricity, the invisible power created by friction, can be used for 
good or evil. As long as the motorman of a trolley car or any other 
vehicle driven by electricity keeps this power in control, it will per- 
form a service to man, but should the avenues which supply the power 
to the vehicle become disconnected or the apparatus by which the cur- 
rent is turned on or off fail to work, the car will either not move at 
all or move too fast and to its own and others' destruction. If a human 
being or animal were running away, no matter at what speed, it 
would avoid danger to itself and others by changing its course when 
and wherever that might be necessary. This, the car, over which 
control has been lost, does not. Here again is shown the difference 
of force directed by intelligence, and that which is not so directed. 

I cite these instances to show that all force or power, not emanat- 
ing from or directed by a conscious being, endowed with the power 
of reasoning, can be easily distinguished from that which is so direc- 
ted. We have seen that by joining certain material substances, each 
of which, if separate, is of little or no use; man can produce something 
with qualities approaching the supernatural. This something thus 
created by man saves human or animal life from certain extinction on 
the one hand, or, on the other hand, destroys life which only a moment 
before was in the healthiest condition possible. This something will, 
on the one hand, destroy the handiwork of man, which may require 
months or years to complete, in less time than it takes to tell it, or, on 
the other hand, accomplish for man's good achievements which with- 
out its assistance would be next to or absolutely impossible. 

Having learned that the force or power directed by intelligence is 
a respecter of persons and things, and that the other is not, let us 
endeavor to learn to which of the above named classes the forces of 
nature supposedly directed by a supernatural, perfect Personality, 
really belong. Lightning, heat, rain, hail, and wind are manifesta- 
tions of nature through which much good and much harm can and 
has been done in the past and, undoubtedly, will be done in the future. 
I believe it safe to say that not only many, but that a large majority 
of the people in this world believe that the elements are instruments 
in the hand of one or more Gods, which He or They use to reward or 
punish the good or evil doers on this planet. I have heard supposedly 
intelligent Jews and Christians, not pagans, whom we of the western 
part of this earth generally look down upon as ignorant and uncivil- 
ized, say after a castrophe at sea, a flood brought about through con- 
tinuous rain, or a tornado, in each of which life and property were de- 

41 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

stroyed, that in such manifestations of nature, we must recognize the 
hand of God. Not long ago, an old Jew who sold Jewish prayer books 
told others as well as myself that the last massacre of Jews in Russia 
was a punishment of God for the sins the Jews had committed. 

Let us investigate this matter and begin with lightning. This 
manifestation, which was at one time universally accepted as the most 
powerful weapon of a God of some kind, is to-day better understood. 
Nevertheless, millions of the so-called uncivilized human creatures 
and the more ignorant of the so-called civilized ones refuse to this 
day to recognize lightning for what it really is. To-day, children in 
school are taught that it is a flash of electricity caused by two clouds 
filled with electricity coming in contact with each other, and that 
thunder is caused by the closing of the air which the flash parted. 
Two electric wires brought together and the cracking of a whip will 
bring the same result in a milder form. A high building or tree, 
especially when wet, is more apt to be struck by lightning than an 
object nearer to the ground. They act as drawing rods and cause 
the electric spark to leave its original course. So much for what 
lightning is and how it acts. 

Now let us see whether it is directed by an intelligent Being or 
God. If a powerful, intelligent Being would send a bolt of lightning 
to hit a certain object on this earth, it would make no difference where 
the object was, whether high or low, or what it consisted of, the 
bolt would reach its destination. But this seems here not to be the 
case. We know that a high object is in greater danger of being 
struck than a low one, and one made of, or in close touch with metal is 
in greater danger than one made of other material, or not near metal. 
For instance, nothing is more foolish in a thunderstorm than to stand 
under a tree, near a stove, or to carry articles of metal. I personally 
know of cases where, of a number of persons caught in a thunder- 
storm, some stood under a tree and others went to an old shed for 
shelter. Those under the tree were hurt or killed, while the others 
were not. I also know of men coming from the field where, one 
carrying a hoe or pick-axe on his shoulder was struck, while the other, 
less than twelve inches from him, was not touched. We know also 
that metal, especially copper, is a conductor of electricity and can be 
used to attract and lead electricity to where its harmfulness is at an 
end. The contrivance called lightning rod is such a conductor and in 
use on millions of buildings the world over. If every object in this 
world could be provided with a properly attached lightning rod, there 
would be nothing struck save the ground. That even those who preach 
to us, and who would like us to believe as our early forefathers did. 
have great faith in that man-made mechanical device, is proven by the 
great number of them who have attached this device to the highest 
point of the roofs of their residences, schools, and even the churches, 
or so-called houses of God. I have counted as many as seven light- 

42 



Supernatural Being or God? 

ning rods on one church. On a Catholic church, the point reaches 
about ten inches above the cross. In all of these churches, especially 
the Catholic, God is supposed to be present in body and soul, or at 
least in spirit. 

Now, my religious friends, do you not think that, if these priests 
and ministers, these so-called representatives of God really and truly 
believed that a God of their own description is in existence and ever 
present in the buildings called churches, and that this very God is the 
one who directs the bolts of lightning, they should be less afraid of 
lightning than they seem to be? Think over this, dear reader. The 
very fact that they equip not only their dwellings, but also their 
churches, with this device proves one of two things. They either 
have very little confidence in the supposed might and wisdom of the 
God they profess to believe in, or they positively know that there is 
no conscious, supernatural Being or God in existence who directs the 
forces of nature and is mighty enough to protect his own from harm, 
and therefore rely on man-made devices for protection. You may feel 
assured, religious reader, that the last mentioned supposition is the 
correct one. Their actions prove it. 

Further proof that the supposed God is either unable or unwilling 
to protect the very place wherein He is said to dwell, from destruction, 
can be found in the fact that only a few months ago three Catholic 
churches were struck by lightning within a very short time. Jewish 
and Protestant churches fared no better. Each one was badly damaged, 
and in one of the three churches, one priest and a number of church 
members were killed and others injured. If that had happened to three 
saloons, dance halls, or gambling houses in so short a period, most of 
these supposedly pious men would have declared that the Lord did it 
because they were poisoning the moral atmosphere. Why not use the 
same reasoning when a church or so-called house of God is concerned? 
These churches had either no lightning rods at all or they were not in 
working order. No church, dance hall, or gambling den is struck by 
lightning or saved from it because of the things done or said therein. 
Lightning is an unconscious manifestation of nature, against which 
mankind has learned to protect itself, and nothing like a God, has 
anything to do with it. 

Trusting that I have made it clear to you that lightning is not an 
occurrence sent or directed by a conscious being, we shall consider 
manifestation number two. Years ago the working of a volcano was 
explained by saying that a large dragon who lived in the ground, was 
spitting fire, and the people tried to appease him by bringing human 
and other sacrifices. To-day we know that the eruptions of the vol- 
canoes are caused by water or other cold liquids coming in contact 
with the fiery mass still existed in the bowels of the earth. By pour- 
ing cold water in a pan of fat or a pot of molten metal, you can pro- 
duce the same effect in a milder form. Only last year the flood in 

43 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

France, caused by continuous rain for weeks, which destroyed life 
and property, was explained by the Catholic clergy as a punishment 
of God on the French nation for separating the church from the state. 
If a flood, lightning, or any other manifestation of nature is sent by a 
God, as described to us, for any reason whatever, then the act must be 
directed by intelligence and this must be recognisable. In that case 
the flood, lightning, storm, et cetra, like the club or the gun in control 
of a conscious being, would naturally pick out its intended victims, 
wherever they might be. But it does nothing of the kind as we shall 
see. A flood sweeps over a certain strip of land, and not over a part 
here and there, and sweeps everything in its way to destruction which 
is not strong enough to withstand the force of the current. As already 
shown, any force directed by intelligence, discriminates between what 
it intends to destroy and that which it does not; any force not so 
directed, does not discriminate. In case of a flood we find that in 
every instance, the old and poorly built structures, wherein those live 
who are generally most loyal to the Lord, and whose whole lives are 
full of suffering, are swept away and its inhabitants perish, and that 
the palaces of the wealthy, the prisons, and other well built structures 
and their inhabitants suffer very little or no damage. This looks like 
discriminating against the poor and the weak, but such is not the case. 
Had those who lived in the poorly built houses changed places before 
the flood came with those in the stronger ones, they would have been 
saved, and the others would have suffered or died. For instance, the 
daughter of one family was the only one saved because she happened 
to work for a wealthy man who lived in a strong house. The son of 
another was in prison and was also the only one saved in his family. 
Did this God, who is supposed to have sent the flood, discriminate 
between churches? Yes, he did. The poorly built wooden shacks, 
the property of a poor congregation he destroyed, and the well built 
structures he permited to remain intact. If a stick of dynamite or a 
bomb were placed between a very large rock and a dry goods box, 
the bomb would also discriminate in favor of the rock, just as the flood 
did in favor of the stronger buildings. 

We have so far seen that the behavior of both the lightning and 
the flood proves that the activity of neither of them is directed by 
intelligence of any kind and can, therefore, not be the doings of a God 
as described to us. A strong wind or tornado, the rottening of the 
farmer's crops by too much rain, or the burning of them by too much 
heat and not sufficient dampness are all in the same category with 
the other two. A tornado, like a flood, will sweep everything not 
strong enough to withstand its force before it to destruction. Of 
this we had proof in this very country only about a year ago. The 
superior strength of the obstacle in its path is the only thing respected 
by this so-called heavenly visitor. When equally exposed, the inno- 
cent new-born infant and the hardest criminal, those in the prime of 

44 



Supernatural Being or God? 

youth and the old and feeble, the millionaire and the pauper are all 
treated alike by this dreaded monster which is said to be directed by 
a godly Personality. 

We read that during the last great storm, a number of nuns ran 
from an old convent, which a moment later collapsed, into the bishop's 
residence right opposite the convent, and thereby saved their lives. 
Here we see again that durability saved the day. Many more such in- 
stances could be pointed out. Yes, every noticeable manifestation 
gives additional proof that these forces of nature are neither conscious 
in themselves nor directed by intelligence from any source whatever. 
To ruin the crops of a nation by too much rain or heat and cause the 
dying from hunger of milions of living creatures is in itself surely 
not an act which one would expect a just God and loving Father to 
commit, and yet we are told that such occurrences are also God's 
doings. Had the crops on a farm here and there been ruined by a 
plague of this kind, while others in the same location had not been 
affected, it would be reasonable to believe that the forces at work 
were directed by intelligence of some kind, for intelligence only can 
distinguish one from another. But the fact that the destruction was, 
like that of the flood and the storm, indiscriminate over a certain strip 
of land, and that all the people in the land felt the effects of it and not 
one here or there proves again that no conscious, supernatural Person- 
ality or God had anything to do with directing the forces that caused 
the destruction. When a plague has affected the food supply of a na- 
tion, it is not the evildoers of all classes who suffer, as one would surely 
expect if a just God had sent the calamity as a punishment, but only 
those who have not the means to purchase the food at the increased 
price. 

Anyone, be he a thief, a murderer, or the biggest scoundrel, as 
long as he is able to pay the price demanded, need not suffer, while 
thousands and often millions of poor, honest, and pious people suffer 
hunger and even death. Can you believe, religious reader, that nature's 
affairs would be conducted in such a manner, if an alwise, almighty 
and just God were the directing power? You may feel assured, dear 
reader, that the forces of nature would not act thus if a conscious, 
supreme Being or God were the director thereof. 

To the same extent and in the same indiscriminate fashion that the 
elements of nature spread ruin and desolation over the land, these 
same forces distribute blessings in the shape of increased quantities 
of the fruits of the soil, healthy atmosphere, et cetera. The scoundrel 
who, if anything, curses God benefits to the same and often to a much 
greater extent than the honest and pious, who remember their imagin- 
ary God every day and plead with him, not for riches, but for their 
daily bread. Furthermore, dear reader, if a God, as described to us, 
were directing the forces of nature, it would surely not be possible for 
mere man to tell weeks and months in advance the kind of weather 

45 



we are going to have, or seventy years in advance, almost to the min- 
ute, when a comet will appear. This would mean nothing less than 
reading the innermost thoughts of this supposed infinite and supernat- 
ural Personality, called God. The fact that this is possible for mere 
man to do proves again that no personal, supreme Being is the ruler 
of this universe. 

At this stage many readers may say, "We grant that the elements 
of nature are not directed by a conscious, godly Personality, and we 
grant that trees, flowers, and other plants can be made to grow and 
bloom through the efforts of man, but how could the sun, moon, and 
stars, each of which is a planet as large or larger than our earth, main- 
tain their positions in relation to the earth without the aid of a mighty, 
conscious, supernatural Being or God?" This question I shall answer 
thus : While I have not been on a tour of inspection among the 
planets named, and, therefore, am not able to give a detailed explan- 
ation in that respect, I do know that the unconscious laws of nature 
make it possible for material bodies to remain in mid air without the 
assistance of a supernatural Being or any material support. For 
proof, look at the following illustrations. 



46 




No. 1 




No. 2 




Each one of the three illustrations presents to you the spectacle 
of two forks which are fastened to one end of a match, while the other 
end of the match rests to the extent of one-eighth of an inch on an 
upturned sugar bowl. The forks, as you see, remain in an apparently 
miraculous way in mid air. Illustration Number one shows two forks,, 
whose combined weight is three or four ounces, remain in mid air in 
a position parallel with the bottom of the upturned sugar bowl with- 
out any material support. Illustration Number two shows the two 
forks in about the same position as in Number one with an additional 
weight added to that of the forks. By looking closely, you will observe 
that the added weight presses the forks, slightly downwards, without 
causing them to fall. Illustration Number three shows the forks not 
only remaining in mid air parallel with the object on which one end of 
the match rests, but you see them raised almost to the point of falling 
backwards. This position of the forks proves that it is not only 
possible for a material object to carry its own weight unsupported in 
mid air, but that it can raise its own weight to an almost perpendicular 
position without any "godly" or material assistance. Here, undoubt- 
edly, many readers will say, "The match is acting as a support to the 
forks." To those readers I will say that there is nothing further from 
the truth, in fact, the very opposite is the case. The forks are keeping 
the match from falling. For proof of this, try the following experi- 
ment : Place a match without the forks in the same position as in the 
illustration, on the edge of a glass, a cup, or a bowl, and you will find 
that it falls off the moment you take your hands away. You will 
also find, if you try it, that the match with the forks attached to it will 
refuse to stay in mid air if the forks are not placed at a certain angle. 
The experiment with the match alone must prove to anyone with an 
ounce of common sense that the match can in no way be considered a 
material support for the forks. For, if it were, it would surely be able 
to keep itself in the position in which it is placed when the forks are 
not attached to it. The fact that the match alone will not remain in 
mid air when placed in a position as shown in the illustration, and the 
fact that with the weight of the forks on one end, both match and 
forks will remain in mid air proves conclusively that the forks are sup- 
porting the match and themselves. The second experiment which 
demonstrates that the mere attaching of the forks to the match will 
not keep them from falling proves that the forks, no more than the 
match, are of themselves responsible for the apparently miraculous 
result produced. The fact that the forks, attached to the match, must 
be placed at a certain angle to enable both the match and the forks to 
remain in mid air at all, and the additional fact that the enlarging of 
the angle bears the forks downwards, while the narrowing of the 
angle has the very opposite effect, prove beyond a doubt that it is one 
of the unconscious laws of nature which makes this seeming miracle 
possible. 

49 



Is There in Existence a Conscious 

Now, dear reader, we have come to the point where the answer to 
your question can be completed. I feel confident that no fairminded 
reader will deny that the illustrations on Page 47 and the explana- 
tions given in connection therewith should convince any fairly intelli- 
gent person that solid material objects can be suspended in mid air 
without any "godly" or material support. If this is admitted, we 
must also admit that it is at least possible that the earth and all the 
other planets are kept in their place through the operation of that same 
unconscious law of nature. If the question is asked, who or what is 
responsible for the existence of these unconscious laws of nature, I 
shall answer thus : No matter how they came into existence, one 
thing is certain namely that no conscious supreme being had a hand 
in -bringing them into existence or in operating them, for, if a God, as 
-described to us, were the ruler of the universe, He would not permit 
mere man to make use of natural laws as he does himself. What is 
your opinion in this respect, dear reader? 

I would advise you, to try the experiments mentioned herein and 
be convinced. You can use a glass, a cup, or any other article high 
enough to keep the forks from touching the table. You will get the 
same result whether the one end of the match rests on the bottom or 
the upper rim of the glass, cup or other article you may use. To lower 
the forks, spread them apart ; to make them rise, bring the ends of the 
forks closer together. 

In concluding this chapter, I think that it would not be out of 
place to draw the reader's attention to the fact that, in spite of thou- 
sands of years of religious preaching and the large amount of progress, 
the human race has made during that time, a very large majority of 
the people the world over are suffering to-day as much as before, only 
from slightly different causes. Think of the hundreds of thousands 
of men, women, and children maimed and killed in mines, railroads, 
and factories of all kinds in the last few years only, and in so-called 
civilized and Christian America and Europe. The causes for this 
state of affairs in most cases is greed for worldly things, and many of 
the highest rank and highly respected church dignitaries, as well as in 
supposed religious laymen, are the beneficiaries. Little innocent 
creatures still in the mother's womb, of which a just God is supposed 
to be the Creator, are among the victims. Thousands of them when 
they see the light of day are in a sickly or crippled condition, because 
their mothers were underfed and overworked. All this and more, 
my religious friends, happens under the eyes of this supposed, almigh- 
ty, righteous, and loving Father and with the consent and even assist- 
ance of His many so-called representatives on earth. When I picture 
to myself all the wrongs perpetrated in the past and at the present 
day on the members of the human race, I cannot help coming to the 
conclusion that, if the wickedness of all the wicked that ever lived 
were concentrated in one being, and that, if that scoundrel of all 

50 



Supernatural Being or God? 

scoundrels with a heart of steel could see, as we are told God sees, 
and had the power to remedy, as they claim God has, that his heart 
of steel would soften, and that he would bring about at least some 
relief to the poor and downtrodden, which this supposed, just, and 
loving Father seems to have no intention of doing. I have the high- 
est regard for Christ as a man, for he seems to have been the noblest 
character that ever graced a human form and would surely not attempt 
ridicule at his expense. But, my Christian readers, I honestly believe 
that if a God as described to us really suffered and died for the sins 
of anyone, that it must have been for those committed by himself. 

On this point, dear reader, you may console yourself. No God 
had ever any occasion to die for his own or anyone else's sins, nor 
is a God, as described to us, responsible for any good or wrong com- 
mitted in this world for the very good reason that there is no such a 
God in existence. If we must call something God, then I suggest that 
we of the human race embody in our conception of what God is, all 
that is powerful and good in nature itself and all that is good in human 
nature, including the desire to become as perfect as possible. To this 
let us add the determined resolution to work with might and main in 
our endeavor to bring about the true brotherhood of all mankind and 
the additional resolution to permit no obstacle, no matter under what 
additional resolution to permit no obstacle, no matter under what 
name or disguise it might parade, to stand in the way of accomplishing 
this desired result. 

What is true in regard to the existence or non-existence of a God 
or Gods is also true regarding good or evil spirits, in other words, 
angels or devils. Neither angels or devils are in existence; at least 
not the kind that we are told about. The real angels and devils that 
do exist have neither wings nor horns, but possess a material body, and 
live on this earth until they die, and you, dear reader, mingle with 
some of them every day. In other words, the human beings who live 
on this earth are the real angels and devils with the latter predomi- 
nating. Do we not all know that for every one of our fellow men or 
women who is willing to do another a good turn, there are ten who 
are ready, yes, anxious, to do all the harm they can? Heaven and hell 
are also only then in existence when the people who live on this earth 
create either a heaven or a hell for themselves and others by their 
good or evil conduct toward each other. 

The non-existence of an almighty, alwise, just, and loving God, 
I feel confident, has been proven. By proving the non-existence of 
the supposedly one and only God, I have also proven the plural-God 
theories to be a man-invented delusion. Let our motto ever be : 
Work on and on until we have established real peace on earth and 
good will to man, or in other words, the true brotherhood of all 
mankind. 



51 



CHAPTER II. 

Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul Subject to Eternal 
Happiness or Eternal Torture? 

The subject to be treated in this chapter is one of the most im- 
portant dealt with in this work, for it furnishes to the misleaders of 
the people the mainspring in a system designed to keep mankind in 
ignorance and misery by keeping them in fear of a hereafter. It is, 
therefore, necessary that we give it more than ordinary attention. 
The belief in a Mighty God or Gods, or any other dogmatic assertion, 
or all of them put together, have not the awe-inspiring effect on the 
human mind that this particular doctrine has. To the child, the self- 
styled moral teachers pictures angels, pure and happy, singing and 
playing on musical instruments in the presence and glory of God, as 
that which is in store for those who obey the supposed orders of a 
supposed God ; and eternal suffering in a sea of fire as the punishment 
which awaits those who do not obey. On the grown-ups that familiar, 
but awe-inspiring phrase, "What would you win if you gained the 
whole world, but lost your soul," is used to good effect. Even with 
the believers in plural Gods, as well as the Mohammedans, whose con- 
ception of the supposed reward or punishment in the hereafter is of 
an inferior kind to that of the Jews and Christians, this particular 
doctrine takes precedence over all the others combined. 

History records innumerable cases where soldiers not only fought 
more courageously than ever before, but actually sought death in bat- 
tle because they were told that a life of glory in the hereafter would 
be the reward of those who might fall on the battlefield. We are told 
that Queen Katherine of Russia was one of the first rulers professing 
the Christian faith who turned this superstitious belief of her subjects 
to good use. Knowing that the Russian people had more reasons to 
hate than to love her and her associates, and fearing that the soldiers 
might not fight with that spirit which is necessary to bring good re- 
sults, she told them that they were fighting for God, who would take 
all those who died in battle immediately to himself in heaven. 

The most ignorant of the human race know that the body of man 
and every visible part thereof remains on this earth after physical 
death has set in. They also know that the dead body is insensible to 
pleasure or pain. Then why are they afraid of punishment or expect 

52 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

reward in the hereafter? There must be, in the opinion of most 
people, something besides the visible parts of the body that belongs 
to the makeup of the human being, a something that does not remain 
on this earth, and that is not insensible to pleasure or pain. This 
supposed something is called the soul. The questions now arise: 
What is this something called soul ; what substance does it consist of ; 
what are its functions when still connected with the body; and what 
are its functions when released from the body. For answers to the 
above questions let us first consult the dictionary. Here is Webster's 
definition of the word soul. The soul is the spiritual, rational, and 
immortal part of man ; reason or intellect ; conscience ; life, essence ; 
moving or inspiring power ; courage ; human being. Here we see that 
the word soul does not imply one certain thing, but that we may 
understand several greatly different things thereby. In fact, every 
conceivable thing or function necessary to complete a conscious human 
being, even life itself, except the clay form which returns to earth after 
physical death has set in, may be understood by the word soul. This 
really implies, then, that different individuals may form different con- 
ceptions of what the word soul stands for. 

I can hear many religious and well-meaning readers say, "Oh, 
this is only theorizing as to what the soul is or may be, and it will 
never lead me astray." For their and other readers' benefit, I will 
refer again to the same religious authority which I consulted on a 
different subject in a previous chapter, namely, the book entitled 
"Catholic Gems or Treasures of the Church." Before proceeding I 
would like to assure all non-Catholic readers that I am not selecting 
a Catholic book for authority because of any special preference on my 
part for that particular cult, but simply because I have not been able 
to find anything nearly as good on this subject in the writings of any 
other religious body. Furthermore, it must be admitted, no matter 
what we may think of the moral behavior of the Roman Hierarchy, 
that, as a whole, they are a learned body of men and that anything 
authorized by them to be printed for the public to read is the very 
best they are able to produce. 

Here, then, is the definition or explanation this Reliable authority 
gives of the word soul, or rather what that much-spoken-of, precious, 
and important something called soul is. The soul is a substance, 
something that subsists and endures, in which thoughts are formed 
and preserved or remembered. So much for what this something 
called soul is, according to this reliable religious authority. Now let 
that same authority tell us what the nature, the activities, and the 
aspirations of this supposed soul are. The soul rises above matter by 
the will as by understanding ; it loves virtue ; it aspires to a purely 
spiritual felicity; it longs to be united to God. Now, readers, if you 
think that only non-religious people theorize when they speak or write 
on subjects of this kind, read very carefully the following which I 

53 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

reproduce word for word. "From all this (meaning the above ex- 
planation about the soul) we conclude, that the soul possesses spirit- 
ual faculties, and, as the stream indicates the nature of its source, that 
it is itself a spiritual substance." This last part of the explanation 
by this reliable church authority begins by saying, "From all this we 
conclude, that the soul possesses, et cetera." Now, friends, what do 
we mean when we say, we conclude? The dictionary tells us that to 
conclude means to draw an inference ; to draw an inference means to 
accept a fact or consequence, or, in other words, to take for granted 
that according to indications certain bodies consist of certain sub- 
stances, or that certain substances bring certain results. 

This is called theorizing. One only theorizes on something for 
which one has no actual proof. A doctor theorizes according to the 
symptoms when he is not sure of the nature of the ailment his patient 
is suffering from. Many times a theorist has the correct theory, in 
other words, things are in reality what he thinks they are, but he is 
never sure of this until investigations or experiments have proved it 
to be such. Whenever you hear anyone, no matter who he is or what 
the subject under discussion may be, say, "I conclude that this is so 
and so, or I take it for granted," you may know that the party who 
speaks thus is not sure of his premises. When you are sure of some- 
thing you say it is so, and there is no doubting or inferring necessary. 

Having seen the difference between knowing anything and theo- 
rizing about it, let us return to the definition or explanation given 
about the so-called soul. According to the dictionary, we may under- 
stand by the word soul anything and everything conceivable which be- 
longs to the makeup of a conscious human being, except the body of 
clay. Let us review them for closer investigation. First on the list is 
the spiritual or immortal part in man. This is nothing more than an 
imagination of the author of the dictionary, for we have so far no proof 
of the existence within man of any separate spiritual or immortal some- 
thing which corresponds to a soul as described to us. Next comes 
reason or intellect. This, we know, exists in the huamn being to a 
greater or lesser degree, and is something above mere matter. Con- 
science is supposed to be the moral sense in man, but has, in my opin- 
ion, a close connection with reason and intellect, for the more intelli- 
gent a person is, the quicker and louder his innerself speaks to him. 
We are also told that our very life may be called soul. This must sure- 
ly include all the functions of all the organs which produce the move- 
ments of the body. Essence is next on the list as one of the things we 
may understand to mean soul. The dictionary tells us that essence is 
the concentrated preparation of any substance. This means nothing 
more or less than that every particle of the chemical substances which 
assists in completing the whole organism may be called a part of the 
supposed soul. Moving and inspiring power can surely be nothing 
else than essence and life. Courage is a trait of character which many 

54 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

human beings have none or very little of. So if we consider that 
alone as a definition of what the soul is we must admit that many- 
human beings are without a soul. So much for the dictionary defini- 
tion of the word soul, or, in other words, what this supposed some- 
thing called soul is or may be. 

Next we will scrutinize the definition and explanation of that able 
religious authority previously mentioned in the hope of obtaining 
better results. This explanation begins by telling us that the soul is 
a substance. The definition of the word substance is matter or ma- 
terial ; the characteristic and essential part of anything. Here we see 
that if the soul is a substance, as this religious authority tells us it is, 
it must be a material thing, or something recognizable by at least one 
of our five senses. Therefore, it must possess other than spiritual 
qualities and can not be a pure spirit. Next we are told that the soul 
is something that subsists and endures, in which thoughts are formed 
or remembered. To subsist, it must have a distinct and separate 
existence, and to endure, it must possess a material quality. 

I presume that all Christian readers of these pages have been 
taught in school, or otherwise, that Jesus could not have suffered or 
endured as a spirit alone, and that, therefore, it was necessary for him 
to betake to himself a material body and human nature. If this was 
true of Christ who, as God, should be able to do anything, it must 
surely be so with this thing called soul. We are also told that the 
soul is something in which thoughts are formed or remembered. In 
order that it may do either, it must possess the same material qualities 
which constitute the human brain. We know that whenever the brain 
matter is only unduly pressed or slightly disarranged, the power of 
forming or remembering thoughts diminishes and will cease altogether 
if the brain matter is destroyed or removed. This explanation as to 
what the soul is, is more in accord with religious teachings, but never- 
theless contradictory and unsupported by any facts. 

As to the nature of this supposed soul, its activities and desires, 
this religious authority tells us that the soul rises above matter; it 
loves virtue; is aspires to a purely spiritual felicity; it longs to be 
united with God. The above is a mere statement in accord with 
religious doctrines, but not one fact is mentioned to substantiate any 
part thereof. 

To prove to you, dear reader, beyond a doubt, and to lessen the 
probability of your forgetting that the religious authorities have no 
proof to offer for the dictatorial and positive assertions they make 
about things not of this world, I will mention the last part of their 
definition for a second time. After they picture to themselves and to 
all others what this something called soul is and what its nature and 
desires are supposed to be, they begin to theorize and end by conclud- 
ing, by taking for granted, that everything is exactly as they picture 
it to themselves. For proof, read this summing up of theirs. "From 

55 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

all this, we conclude (we take for granted) that the soul possesses^ 
spiritual faculties, and as the stream indicates the nature of its source, 
that it is itself a spiritual substance." Here we have positive proof 
from their own pen, and from at least as good a religious authority 
as can be found on this subject, that the clergy are not sure about 
anything supposed to be spiritual or immortal, but that they theorize 
just like any man would on any other subject. I believe that every 
fair-minded reader will admit that neither the dictionary nor the 
religious authority has established even a plausible, imaginary figure 
of what is generally understood by the word soul. By taking the best 
from the definitions and explanations of both sides and the most rea- 
sonable of their teachings on this subject, we will form our own con- 
clusions as to what this supposed soul is, and what its supposed func- 
tions are when still connected with and when released from the human 
body. 

Before giving our own definition of what this something called 
soul is supposed to be, I would like to call the readers' attention to the 
fact, that when we are asked, "Where will you spend eternity, it im- 
plies that this supposed soul must be our whole inner personality, or 
at least the main or greater part thereof. We are all aware of the fact 
that in the teachings of the one-God theorists, we are told that the soul 
is the breath of God, or our very life which God blew in the nostrils of 
Adam, and which he implants within every human being. While 
the religious leaders of all creeds teach the existence of a soul in some 
form and thereby keep millions of people in fear of a hereafter, they 
have given us a very poor explanation, at its best, of what this prec- 
ious thing called soul really is. 

In order that I may prove this teaching to be false, which it is my 
intention to do, I must have at least a fair knowledge of the nature, 
the functions, and characteristics ascribed to this supposed something 
called soul. These I shall endeavor to describe in a very concrete 
form. In other words, I shall endeavor to place a complete picture of 
this supposed soul before you. Here then is that picture. According 
to the teachings and assertions of religious authorities, as well as 
dictionary definitions, that something called soul is the spiritual and 
immortal part or the essence of life within man, therefore the sole 
cause of all the functions of all physical and mental organisms within 
the human body. It is that which survives when the organisms have 
ceased to functuate or physical death has set in and continues its 
spiritual existence in a spiritual world or atmosphere. It is that 
which is held responsible for the moral conduct of man while con- 
nected with the body, and either enjoys eternal happiness as a reward 
for good, or eternal pain as punishment for sinful conduct, as the case 
may be. 

I feel certain that every fair-minded reader will agree with me 
that the above definition covers every point that may be in dispute and 

56 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

includes all characteristics attributed to this something called soul. 
Neither does it cover or include anything not claimed for this sup- 
posed soul by the propounders of this doctrine. Right in the begin- 
ning, the so-called holy Scripture tells us that when God blew his 
breath, which is considered the soul, into the body of clay, that life 
started within the body at the same time. If the supposed soul is not 
the source of life and responsible for all functions of all organisms 
within the body, why should it receive reward or punishment for the 
good or evil perpetrated through these organisms? Why is not some 
other part of men rewarded or punished? Think over this, religious 
reader. My friends, I have dwelt at great length on this particular 
part of the subject under discussion, not for my benefit, but for yours. 
The work done and the time spent will be of no use to me whatever in 
proving the non-existence of a soul as described to us, but it will help 
you greatly to distinguish between the right and the wrong. 

Now that we have learned the nature of this supposed mysterious 
something called soul and what its powers and responsibilities are 
supposed to be, we will turn our searchlight in a different direction 
and see if such a Soul is really in existence. Let us begin our search 
for the truth from the very moment this something called soul is sup- 
posed to identify itself with the form of clay or human body. Let us 
bear in mind that this supposed soul is the essence of life within man, 
the cause of all and everything, even the force that causes the body 
or material matter to increase in size. In other words, all parts of 
the human body which take part in the good or evil done by the human 
being, including all the human senses, must of necessity be mere in- 
struments of that something called soul. This must positively be the 
case, for how could the soul be held responsible for something it is 
not the cause of. Every person with a normal intellect and above 
eighteen years of age, knows that it requires a period of nine months 
or at least two hundred and seventy days for the human body and all 
its organisms to develop from the semen to the completion of the 
human form. 

The soul as described to us being the essence of life, and it 
being a fact that nothing can increase in size, except when the germ 
of life is existent therein, the soul must become united with the ma- 
terial matter as soon as conception has taken place. Next we must 
bear in mind that this supposed soul is the breath of God, a spiritual 
and immortal something originated from and ordained by God to its 
proper place and functions. This being a fact, it should be only nat- 
ural for us to expect that the important activities of such a godly thing, 
under God's own supervision, could not be stopped or even hampered 
by human agencies. We know, however, that this can be done in a 
number of different ways. 

To cause the permanent suspension of those activities spells noth- 
ing less than physical death. To cause death means that the essence 

57 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

of life or the soul has deserted the material substance with which it 
was formerly united. The question may now be asked, why should 
that important godly something called soul forsake its place and the 
duties assigned to it, just because the mother meets with an accident, 
takes medicine, or has an operation performed. This fact proves then 
that this supposed precious and all-important something called soul 
gives way to strong chemicals, the surgeon's knife, and other un- 
natural causes before the formation of the human body has rightly be- 
gun, and when it surely cannot be said that his or her time had come to 
die. This holds good at any further stage of development until birth 
has taken place. 

There are a number of cases on record where the mother died 
shortly before her confinement was to take place, and the child 
was saved from sure death by the surgeon's knife. Had this opera- 
tion not been performed at all, or a minute too late, the child 
would have died. In other words, this something called soul would 
have left the mortal form of the human, while, since the operation was 
successfully performed, it "changed its mind" and remained with 
the body for perhaps many years. In another case, the life of 
the infant is crushed out through the unskillfullness or careless- 
ness of the attending physician or midwife. In still another the 
life of the infant is crushed out through the unskillfullness or care- 
lessness of the attending physician or midwife. In still another the 
body of the child must be cut to pieces to save the life of the mother. 
In every one of these instances, the soul deserts or remains because of 
human or unnatural agencies. These few instances mentioned so far 
ought to convince any adult person gifted with average intelligence, 
that there is no soul as described to us in any way connected with the 
human personality, but we have more and stronger evidence in store. 
Thus far, we have observed how the supposed soul remains with or 
deserts the material substance while still unborn or at the time of 
birth for no other reason than that human agencies or unnatural 
circumstances interfered with the natural course of events. 

Now, friends, let us study the conduct of this supposed soul in 
relation to the human body after birth has taken place. We will begin 
with the premature birth. Thousands of children are born every 
year one, and often two, months before the natural time for this event 
to take place . This naturally implies that this tiny human form and 
its organs are not as fully developed and as vigorous as they should 
be at the proper time of birth, and, therefore, need more than ordinary 
attention. When in a case of that kind, the infant is placed immed- 
iately in a real or home-made incubator and given intelligent care, in 
nine cases out of ten, the child will live, while without these provisions, 
it would have few or no chances at all to subsist. Here we see again 
that this supposed soul, this all and everything within man, either 
remains with or deserts the human body just as circumstances dictate. 

58 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

Next, let us take the case of two children born in a weak condition. 
The parents of one have the knowledge and the means to provide pure 
air, good nurishment, and the proper care, and this child becomes 
strong and lives to old age, or, in other words, the soul remains with 
its body. The parents of the other child are not able to provide these 
necessities, and the child dies, or, in other words, the soul deserts its 
mortal form. 

Now, let us take two adult human beings of middle age who are 
badly wounded in the same manner and at the same time. One is, at 
the time, among or near other human beings who give him timely aid, 
and the supposed soul remains with the body. The other is in a 
lonely spot at the time he is injured, and, unable to summon the neces- 
sary help, his blood flows away, and the soul deserts his mortal form. 
Now, dear reader, is it still possible that you can believe that such an 
important, superhuman something, as the soul is described to us to be, 
is the moving spirit within you or has any part whatever in the func- 
tions performed by a*ny of the organisms of the human body? If so, 
I will produce more and stronger proof to the contrary. Everyone of 
you know of cases where honest and hardworking parents die and 
leave a number of little ones behind, none of which is able to provide 
for itself. The cause of their death is generally overwork, underfeed- 
ing, or the unhealthy and unsafe kind of employment they pursue, and 
the inability to provide proper treatment for themselves. 

Why, dear reader, should this godly something called soul, this 
all within man, desert the mortal form of these fathers and mothers, 
these useful creatures, and thereby rob their poor innocent children of 
their providers and protectors just because poor circumstances pre- 
vented them from taking better care of themselves? While, on the 
other hand, many useless individuals, who contract disease through 
their beastish mode of life, do not die, or, in other words, the soul re- 
mains within them just because they possess the means to provide 
themelves with the proper medical or surgical treatment, as the case 
may be. Think over this, dear reader. Another human being falls in 
a river and because he absorbs a certain quantity of water, his sup- 
posed soul deserts his mortal frame. Still another inhales a certain 
quantity of gas or hangs himself, and this godly something called soul 
leaves its bodily abode on that account. If a soul as described to us 
is in existence and performs the functions it is supposed to perform, 
what reasons could it have for leaving the human body, because his 
blood flows away, he absorbs water, inhales gas, or prevents himself 
from breathing. Enough instances to fill many books of this size 
could be recorded where, if the religious teachings about the soul are 
true, it deserted the human body for the most childish reasons imagin- 
able. 

But, friends, the fact of the matter is that no soul of that descrip- 
tion ever deserted any human body for any reason whatsoever, for 

59 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

there is no such a thing in existence. The real truth about the matter 
is this : A human being is a highly developed two-legged animal 
(some humans may rightly be called the very highest). Its organs 
functuate through the same causes, and in much, if not wholly, the 
same manner as those of the larger animals. To make myself still 
clearer, I will express myself thus : The healthy human body is like 
that of the animal, a complete piece of machinery in working order, 
of which the blood represents the steam, the heart the piston rod or 
pump, and every other organ or vital part thereof truly represents 
some necessary part in the construction of a machine made of metal. 

Many readers may not agree with me. Nevertheless, they con- 
sciously or unconsciously give evidence that they do agree with me 
when they permit a physician to prescribe medicine, or a surgeon to 
use the knife. Both of them are mechanics and perform the very 
same functions on your body that a carpenter, a machinist, or any 
other mechanic performs in his line. The only difference is they work 
on flesh and bones, while other mechanics work on metal, wood, 
et cetera. 

To make assertions, however, does not prove anything, so let us 
turn our attention to producing proof to substantiate the foregoing 
statement. Let us begin by showing that the essence of life within 
the animal is the same as that within the human being, and vice 
versa. For example, if a strong and healthy human being and some 
animal, a horse or ox, for instance, also in the best of health, were 
placed in one room, and on each of them a vein was opened, here is 
what would happen. Each one of these subjects would gradually, as 
the blood ebbs away from his body, become weaker and weaker. The 
pulsation of the heart in each would become slower and slower until, 
when all the blood had left the body, it would stop beating, all the 
other organs of the body would cease to functuate, and then both the 
human being, as well as the animal, would die. It might take a few 
minutes longer with one than with the other for death to set in accord- 
ing to the amount of blood each body contains, or the rapidity with 
which it flows away. But the cause for their dying is the same. Here 
we have positive proof, not imagination, that a human being who is 
supposed to possess the breath of God, an immortal soul which con- 
stitutes the essence of life within it, dies from the same cause, and I 
believe it is safe to say, in the same time as a creature called animal, 
which is admittedly not blessed with a spiritual, immortal something 
called soul. 

Now, friends, this human being was in the prime of life, in perfect 
health, every organ in the best of condition. He was not even injured 
in the strict sense of the word; simply a valve was opened, and the 
blood permitted to escape. Then why should this immortal soul, if 
one is really there, leave the confines of the human body just because 
the blood had flown away. Would not a machine made of metal also 

60 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

run slower and slower and stop running if a valve on the boiler was 
opened, and all the steam gradually permitted to escape? I feel con- 
fident that every fair-minded reader will admit that the workings of 
the organs within the human, the animal, and the iron machine is 
much, if not wholly, the same. Can there be any doubt, then, that the 
essence of life within the animal is the same as that within the human 
body, and that it corresponds very closely to that energy producing 
medium called steam ? 

Now let us return to our experimenting room. The human body 
and that of the animal are now lifeless, and if they are permitted to 
remain there for twenty-four hours, they will both begin to emit a 
strong offensive odor, and in the course of time, whether they are left 
there or buried, both the human body, the supposedly former abode 
of a spiritual and immortal soul, as well as that of the animal will 
decay. Here we see that not only the essence of life is the same in the 
human and the animal, but that the bodies of both contain the same 
kind of substance and are in the same degree subject to the laws of 
nature. We all know for a positive fact that human beings were stab- 
bed or shot a dozen times, or every bone in their body broken, and 
still life and consciousness remained within them. On the other hand, 
we also know of youthful, strong, and healthy human beings who died 
of the effects of a blow on the head with an ordinary man's hand, the 
pricking of a pin, or the drinking of a cold glass of water when over- 
heated. Why this great contrast, my friends? Can it be possible 
that the soul, or essence of life, of one who was all mashed up, or full 
of holes, decided to remain within his mortal frame at any cost, while 
the soul of the other agreed to desert the body on the most flimsy 
pretext imaginable? 

No, dear reader, such is not the case. If a soul as described to us 
were really in existence within the human body, it would not conduct 
itself in such a manner. The true fact of the matter is this: The 
human body, like that of the animal or any ordinary piece of ma- 
chinery, consists of more or less vital parts, and it depends which part 
is removed or injured. For instance, you may cut a man's legs and 
arms off, a large part of his head and of the rest of his body without as 
much as interrupting the functions of the organs within the body. 
A doctor can remove part of the windpipe and mend it with a silver 
one, take the eyes out and replace them in an improved condition, 
remove, mend, and replace the stomach, the principal organ of diges- 
tion. Yes, he can do more than that. He can cut and mend the 
lungs and the heart, the most vital organs in the body, and improve 
the activities of the brain. All this and much more can be done with- 
out causing death, or, in other words, causing the supposed soul to 
desert the body. 

What difference is there, then, between this and repairing a ma- 
chine? But if a bullet, a knife, or even a hatpin finds its way to the 

61 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

heart, the organ which pumps the blood, the real essence of life, 
through the veins, or if through any cause whatever, the connection 
between the heart and the brain is broken off, death will set in, or, in 
other words, that spiritual, immortal something called soul will de- 
sert the body. Again I must ask why this contrast if an immortal 
soul is the all and everything within us? When a human being is 
sick, we do not implore the soul to please remain with the body. In- 
stead we call a doctor, the mechanic who knows that some organ of 
the body does not functuate as it should, and endeavors to find the 
cause and devise a remedy. He feels the pulse, listens to the beating 
of the heart, or measures the degree of heat within the body, and, 
according to indications of the symptoms, he prescribes what he thinks 
is necessary to be done. If the blood has become corrupted with 
poisonous ingredients, it can be purified ; if a larger quantity or better 
quality of blood is required, it can be transferred from a healthy full- 
blooded human being to the one in need of it. Here we see again that 
there is very little, if any, difference between the organism of the 
human or animal body and the mechanism of the modern machine. 
For instance, the steam represents the blood, the piston represents 
the heart, the gears and other parts of the machine represent the other 
organs of the body. Little or no blood, and the body is sick or dead ; 
little or no steam, and the machine runs slow or stands still; injure 
the heart and break the piston, and the movements of both the human 
body and the machine will stop. A human being may stop the beat- 
ing of his heart and cause immediate death by drinking a cold liquid 
when overheated. This may be called an explosion, or the next thing 
to it. By pouring cold water in an overheated boiler when its own 
water is low, you will cause an explosion, and stop the wheels from 
turning. What difference, then, is there between the human and the 
iron machine? All other defects may obstruct, but will not cause the 
total suspension of the machine's activities, which also corresponds 
very much, if not wholly, with the workings of the organs within the 
human and animal bodies. 

Every fair-minded reader, I believe, will admit that I have already 
produced considerable evidence to prove the truth of my assertion, but 
we have still more in store. I have personal knowledge of a case 
where two consumptive young men, who were friends and lived almost 
next door to each other, and who were both in the last stages of the 
disease and apparently near death's door. The doctor told both of 
them that the only way to prolong their life was to go to a healthier 
climate. The parents of one of the young men were financially embar- 
rassed and, therefore, unable to give their son the benefit of a change of 
air, and he died exactly twenty days from that date. The parents of the 
other took their son to a place in the country where there was healthier 
air for him to breathe. In less than two weeks, he was well able to 
walk around, and eight months later, when I saw him again, he was 

62 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

still alive and doing quite well. Had he remained in the city, I am 
sure that he would not have lived much longer than his friend. The 
prediction of the doctor came true with the one and would undoubted- 
ly have come true with the other, if he had not had a change of climate. 
This is one case of many thousands which occur every year, where 
people who suffer with disease must bite the dust chiefly for want of 
good air, nutritious food, and the services of a competent physician, 
while others can prolong their lives for weeks, months, and years 
because they possess the means to obtain the necessities mentioned. 

If it is true that we humans possess an immortal soul, which is 
the essence of life within us, why should that soul remain with or 
desert us because we are able or unable to obtain pure air, good food, 
and a doctor's care. , Think this over, dear reader. Everyone who 
reads newspapers has often read something like this : Mr. or Mrs. 

H is at the point of death and is kept alive by artificial means. 

This we read when a person of wealth or prominence is at the brink 
of death. Now let us see, dear reader, what the word artificial stands 
for. Artificial means unnatural or imitation. When we say he has 
an artificial leg, eye or tooth, we mean that an imitation of a leg, eye 
or tooth has been substituted for the genuine one. In the case before 
us, we are not told of anything artificial pertaining to the body, but 
we are told that life is kept within the body artificially. In other 
words, the very essence of life within the human body is substituted 
by an imitation, and we know of cases where an imitation of this kind 
has prolonged life for days and weeks. The artificial part in a case 
of this kind, I believe, consists in injecting a chemical preparation 
into the body, which stirs up the blood to more activity which, in turn, 
produces a stronger action of the heart. This proves then that either 
it is possible, when the organs of the human body through age or the 
effects of injury or disease have lost the power of action, to inspire 
them with unnatural or artificial vigor and enable them to continue 
their functions for a time at least, just as a worn out boiler or machine 
can be made to do service for a little while longer ; or, when the 
natural time to die has arrived, the supposed soul, or essence of life, 
lingers in the body for days and weeks just because artificial energy- 
has been supplied to the organs of the body. In other words, the 
soul permits itself to be bribed. Can you still believe, dear reader, 
that a godly something called soul is connected with the human body? 

Doubt about the possibility of the above is out of the question, for 
it happens much oftener than we hear of it. Even high church 
officials, including the very highest, who tell their followers that the 
Lord calls us when our time has come, permit the doctors to prolong 
their lives artificially, and thereby make the intentions of that sup- 
posed Lord null and void. Friends, I must ask you again, is it, in 
your estimation, possible that life in the human body could be pro- 
longed even for one minute artificially if an immortal soul were 

63 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

within us, and a Mighty God had set a certain time for us to die and the 
soul to depart? Think this over, religous reader. Then answer that 
question honestly to yourself at least. 

If you still have doubts about the non-existence of a soul as 
described to us, I will in conclusion produce one or two more in- 
stances to prove that fact. The offspring of two tamed domestic 
animals will likewise be tame, but, if either one or both of the parents 
are of a wild variety, the offspring will inherit the savage nature of 
the parents. This seems very natural to us when those living 
creatures, who are classed as animals, are in question. But we are 
forced to admit that the same holds good with those creatures called 
humans, who are supposed to be of a special make, and whose inner- 
self is supposed to be of a spiritual and immortal substance, unlike that 
of the animal. For instance, the children of really cultivated human 
parents possess, as a general rule, a like quality, while the offsprings 
of partly or wholly savage parents will, in the same proportion as 
in the case of the animal, inherit a more or less savage nature. If 
even one of the animal parents is bright and active, or sulky and 
lazy, the offspring, in most, if not all cases, will inherit partly or 
wholly the traits of that parent. The children of intelligent, honest, 
and mild-natured human parents will almost without exception inherit 
those characteristics, while those of stupid, tricky, and vicious human 
parents will just as surely inherit theirs. The same is true with 
healthy or sick parents, human and animal alike, which proves 
again that there is not much, if any, difference between the human 
and animal, after all. 

If such is not the case, why do we prevent convicted criminals 
and insane people from multiplying, at least while confined in state 
institutions? Why is there agitation at the present time, demanding 
that habitual criminals and degenerates be castrated, in other words, 
made unfit to propagate their kind. Yes, more than that is demanded. 
Ordinary, good-behaving, supposedly civilized men and women are to 
be required to show a doctor's certificate of good intellect and physical 
health before they will be permitted to be married, or, in other words, 
to form the legal union of expected parenthood. Some so-called 
ministers of that very gospel, which rests entirely on the belief in a 
spiritual, immortal something called soul, refuse to marry any couple 
who cannot show a certificate of good health. Now, friends, what 
does all this mean ? Can it be possible that there are different grades 
of souls, or essences of life, and that the good Lord places a culti- 
vated and intelligent soul within the mortal form of the child born 
from cultivated and intelligent parents, and a stupid, savage, insane, 
or criminally inclined soul within the offsprings of stupid, insane, 
savage, or criminally inclined parents? This must be so, if a soul, 
as described to us, is in existence, for we hear of no other visible 
or invisible parts of the human being receiving reward or punishment 

64 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

in the hereafter except the soul, and surely the good Lord would not 
reward or punish the soul if it were not responsible for the good or evil 
done by the human being. 

If the soul is really deserving of reward or punishment for good 
or evil deeds committed by the human being, it must be the all 
responsible factor within the human form, in other words, the essence 
or cause of life. Previously presented facts prove that this is not 
the case. The breeder of horses, dogs, or other animals always 
selects the strongest, healthiest, and best-natured specimens for breed- 
ing purposes. To adopt the measures which are now being advocated 
in the interest of a better standard of mankind means noth- 
ing less than that .society or the state will perform the same 
function among the human race that the breeder does among animals. 
How is that, then, dear reader, for putting the human being in the 
same category with the animal? 

My religious friends, why do not the people, especially the clergy, 
pray for physically and intellectually sound human beings, instead 
of advocating race suicide and special breeding. To prohibit any 
number of human beings from propagating their own kind is not only 
advocating but compelling race suicide. Have the clergy and other 
learned and religious people lost hope in the will and power of God 
Almighty to right things which are wrong, and consider it necessary 
to take a hand in this themselves ? No, dear reader, they did not lose 
any hope in that respect, for they had none to lose. All the really 
learned men in this world, and most, if not all, the selfstyled apostles 
of a God or Gods, know now and knew for the last ten centuries at 
least, that no God, as described to us, had or has anything to do with 
the creation and propagation of mankind. Nevertheless, they have 
preached this doctrine to our forefathers and to us, and they will 
continue to preach it in the future and insist that we, and those who 
come after us, shall believe it, while, as a rule, they prove by their 
own actions, that they not only disbelieve it themselves, but that they 
know that the very opposite from what they teach is the truth. 

Next and lastly, let us investigate the conduct of this supposed 
soul after death has, to all appearances, set in. Hardly a week passes 
that we do not hear or read of cases where some persons drowned, 
electrocuted, et cetera, have been revived or brought back to life, 
while others remained dead. To make this more clear, let us employ 
the following illustration. Two young men, of the same age and 
power of endurance, fall into a river and remain the same length of 
time under water, before they are taken on dry land. The heart of 
each has stopped beating, and every sign of death is apparent. One 
of them is in the hands of strangers, who consider him dead, give 
or summon no asistance, and he remains dead. In other words, his 
soul has left him and remains away. The other is in the hands of 
friends who, thinking that the last spark of life has perhaps not left 

65 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

the body begin the process of reviving immediately, and with more 
competent assistance, they succeed in bringing him back to life again, 
or the supposed soul, which had apparently left the body, returns 
again. The same holds true with people who had apparently died 
of an overdose of gas, of electric shock, hanging, et cetera. Often it 
requires several hours of hard work and the application of every 
known measure before even the faintest sign of life is detected, which 
proves that the person in question was very near, if not wholly dead. 
Only recently a doctor in a New York hospital revived a new-born 
baby and kept it alive until other provisions were made by breathing 
in to its mouth. I know of one case where it required eleven hours 
hard and continuous work of three doctors before life returned to the 
body. In this case, three different times the doctors gave up hope, but 
the relatives and friends of the apparently dead person urged them 
to continue, which finally brought the desired result. The soul of this 
man appears to have been a stubborn one. 

This is not the only case of that kind by any means. There are 
cases on record where the body was cut open, and the heart which 
had stoped beating was massaged and life restored. In a case of a 
person frozen to death, the suspension of the bodily functions is 
caused by the gradual stiffening of the blood within the veins, which 
is not unlike water freezing in pipes. In thousands of cases of this 
kind, life has been restored to animals and human beings through 
human agencies. Here we see then that this supposed, immortal 
soul, this all and everything within man, not only remains with or 
deserts the human body according to the dictation of human agencies, 
but that it can be recalled to resume its functions, when, to all ap- 
pearances, it had left the body. If the cause of life within the human 
body is a spiritual, immortal something, placed there by a godly 
personality to perform certain functions for a certain length of time, 
why should that soul, after leaving its bodily abode return to the 
body of one human being because it is rubbed, massaged or heated, 
and remain away from the other because it is not put through the 
same process. I must ask again, is it still possible for you, dear 
reader, to believe that a soul of that nature is the important part in 
the human makeup that we are asked to believe it is ? If the soul did 
leave, where could it have been during its absence from the body? 
The soul, dear reader, did not return to the body, as it appears to have 
done. In each instance it was simply a case of raising new steam and 
starting the machine again. 

Many instances are also recorded, where life, or in other words, 
the soul returned to the body after apparently leaving it, without 
any outside efforts of any kind, or after the person had died a natural 
death. This is called awakening from a death trance. When a person 
is officially declared dead, arrangements for the funeral are made, the 
body taken to the place of burial and actually interred, the parties in 

66 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

charge must surely be convinced that the person in question is really 
dead, and yet it is well known that life has returned to such bodies after 
the grave had closed upon them, as well as shortly before the burial 
was to take place. The finding of bodies who had turned in the casket 
with bunches of their own hair in the grip of their fingers proves this 
fact conclusively. 

Now, my dear reader, if you still believe in a soul as described 
to us what must you think of this godly something that would play 
such dastardly tricks, or the supposed God who would permit it? 
For what a horrible feeling must it be to awake in the grave. In- 
numerable other incidents and illustrations could be cited to substanti- 
ate my assertions as to the non-existence of a soul as described to us. 
But I feel contented that sufficient evidence has been produced to 
prove to anyone at all capable of reasoning and honest enough to be 
convinced that no soul as described to us is in any capacity whatever 
connected with the makeup of the human being. This in turn proves 
that there is no reason to be in fear of death or the hereafter. 

So much to prove the non-existence of a soul as described to us. 
Now arises this question : Is there absolutely nothing connected with 
the human makeup that remains alive and active after physical death 
has set in? While, for lack of positive proof, this question is very 
difficult to answer without resorting to the same deceptive methods 
the misleaders of the people employ it is also an unimportant one 
compared with the question answered in the first half of this chapter. 

Although many indications point to the existence of active and 
conscious life after the organs of the human body have ceased to 
functuate, I will not boldly declare that there is life in some form in 
the hereafter, or that there is not. The evidence we have to sub- 
stantiate either of the above facts is not as plain and convincing as 
that produced to prove the non-existence of the supposed soul. 

Since we have proven, and I believe, conclusively that the theory 
of a soul as described to us by the selfstyled apostles of a God or Gods 
is nothing more than a fairy tale at its best, positive proof as to 
whether life in any other form exists after the bodily organs have 
ceased to functuate, is of very little or no importance compared with 
the evidence required to answer the first question. For the same 
reason that it would be unimportant to know just how much weight 
a bridge, for instance, can carry, after it has been positively proven 
that it is able to hold twice the weight it is obliged to carry. Never- 
theless, we want to know all that is to be known on the subject, and 
we will spare no efforts to gain that knowledge. Where positive proof 
is not available, we humans must use common sense and apply the 
same to the indications in this direction, which we may discover in our 
search for the truth. I personally feel convinced that if life does exist 
after physical death has set in, it is the human mind or intellect 
transplanted to another sphere. I also feel convinced that the human 

67 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

mind or intellect still connected with the body is not only able to 
communicate with other intellects still connected with the body at 
any distance, but also with those disconnected from the body, and 
vice versa. 

Man has a dual or two separate minds. They may be designated 
as the objective and subjective mind. The objective mind is that of 
the ordinary waking consciousness, and its highest function is that of 
reasoning. The subjective mind is that intelligence which is most 
familiarly manifested to us when the brain is asleep, or its action 
is otherwise restrained, as in dreams, or when in a similar state. 
Anyone who is in the least acquainted with the phenomenon resulting 
from any of these mental conditions is aware that wonderful exhibi- 
tions of intellectual power often result. The subjective mind has the 
power of transmitting intelligence to other subjective minds otherwise 
than through the ordinary sensory channels. In searching for what- 
ever proof there may be had, let us begin by acquainting ourselves 
a little more with that well-known mental condition experienced by 
all of us, which is called sleep. Sleep is the natural brother of death, 
for when we are asleep, we are, as far as consciousness and the sense 
of touch is concerned, as good as dead. We all know that a child 
or grown person, when sound asleep, can be lifted from his or her 
resting place and carried a long distance, deposited in and removed 
from many places, and know absolutely nothing of what happened 
when consciousness returns. This fact proves that a person sound 
asleep is not only unconscious of his surroundings, but also to a certain 
degree insensible to feeling. To be in a state of that kind, you will 
admit, dear reader, is to be in a state closely related to death itself. 
But most persons, when coming out of the sleeping state, will tell 
you that their mind was not inactive at all while they were asleep. 
They will tell you that mentally they paid a visit to a friend or relative 
thousands of miles away, that they played cards, went fishing, saw 
houses on fire, that they saw others fall, or that they fell themselves 
a great distance, et cetera. 

This shows that while the objective mind, which attends to the 
necessities of the physical environments of man, was absolutely in- 
active or off duty, the subjective mind was very active, proving tn"e 
existence of two mental states or minds. In fact, you need not be 
asleep at all to have your subjective mind carry you mentally to any 
place you may think of thousands of miles away, and at the same time 
have your objective mind also in action. For instance, you have been 
busy at some work which required mental activity, and at the same 
time you paid mentally a visit to a place a great distance away. The 
fact that this is possible without the activity of one mind interfering 
with that of the other again proves the existence of two distinct mental 
states or minds. 

68 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

Now let us see whether this subjective state of mind is able to 
communicate with other subjective minds. No doubt, many of my 
readers have been seated in a street car or hall containing a number of 
other people, and have seen a certain person, whom you knew or 
thought you knew, a distance in front with his back turned toward 
you. Being anxious to attract his attention, but not wishing to call, 
you kept staring at this particular person. In a short time, he would 
turn around and look in your direction. Or perhaps you may have 
been the one who turned around, and without any sound, touch, or 
desire to look at something behind you causing you to do so. Yes, 
you turned around without willing it, and without knowing why you 
did it. This very thing has happened to me a number of times in a 
number of different places, and I know many others who have had 
the same experience. This seems to be nothing more or less than 
one subjective state of mind communicating with another. 

I know, as a positive fact, that people who could see each other, 
but could not get close enough to communicate in a whisper, trans- 
mitted their message to each other in that manner as clearly as if they 
had spoken or written. I also know of an instance where a person 
was locked in a room when all at once he became so uneasy that he 
could not be calmed. Later we learned that a child of his, who had 
called for his help, had been injured at the very minute he began to 
feel uneasy. Thousands of cases of that kind could be recorded of 
people meeting with accidents or dying who communicated the fact to 
friends or relatives many miles away. I am not a spiritualist, and 
what is more, I feel certain that at least seventy-five per cent, of all 
demonstrations held by mediums are fakes, mere tricks. But I feel 
equally certain that the subjective minds of those departed from this 
world, as well as those in the act of leaving their bodely abode, can 
communicate with those still in the flesh by sound as well as by sug- 
gestion. Many readers of these lines, no doubt, can testify to the 
truth thereof from personal experience. 

An instance of this kind, which happened when I was a boy of 
fifteen, is to-day as clearly impressed on my mind as if it had hap- 
pened yesterday. It was between five and six o'clock in the evening, 
and we were in the kitchen eating supper, when we hard a sound 
coming from the parlor like one rapping three times on the table. I 
was sent in to investigate the cause of the rapping, but could see 
nothing that might have caused it. A minute or two later the three 
raps came again, this time in another room, nearer to the one that we 
were in. Again I investigated with the same result. In another 
minute or two, we heard the raps right in the kitchen. My mother, 
knowing that her sister who lived three hundred miles from our 
home had not been feeling well, became alarmed, and, sure enough, 
late that evening we received a telegram stating that she had died at 

69 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

exactly twenty minutes past five o'clock, or at the very time we had 
heard the rapping. 

I had many similar cases recited to me by people whose intelli- 
gence and honesty can not be questioned. In some cases, the person 
receiving the message not only felt a sensation or heard sounds, but 
actually saw the likeness of the person who was communicating with 
him. Now, my friends, if only one-half, one-fourth, or even one-tenth 
of the manifestations that we hear or read about are true occurences, 
it establishes the fact that the human mind, or one of the human minds, 
has the power to transmit messages to other human minds through 
other than the ordinary channels. This fact being established, ac- 
cording to many and apparently plain indications and human reason- 
ing, there remains only one more question to be answered, namely: 
Has" the subjective mind of those departed, in other words, have those 
released from their bodily abode any influence or power, good, evil, 
or otherwise, over those of their kind who are of inferior intellect, or 
those subjective minds still connected with the human body? This 
part of the question is still more difficult to answer than the previous 
one. Especially difficult is that part which pertains to the control or 
influence of the subjective minds of departed ones of superior intellect 
over those of their own kind who are of inferior intellect; for there 
apparently exists no evidence at all that could help us in solving this 
particular problem. 

That the subjective minds or intellects released from the human 
body have control or influence over at least some of the subjective 
intellects still connected with the body has, to my mind, been often 
demonstrated. I feel certain that all students of the question under 
discussion and many others, such as doctors and prison or police offi- 
cials, can testify to cases that have come under their observation where 
all the facts in the case pointed very strongly to the existence and activ- 
ity of some invisible, and other than ordinary, control or influence over 
the minds of human beings. I personally know of a number of people, 
old and young, who would sooner cut off their right hand than do 
anything wrong, or not becoming to a person of good sense and 
breeding, who at times do evil or foolish things not at all in accord 
with their general conduct and disposition. Their only explanation 
for doing what they did was that they could not help it, that some 
influence over which they had no control, or the strength to resist, led 
them to commit these undesirable acts. Some of them actually cried 
when they fully realized the situation they were in, while everyone 
showed signs of shame and remorse. What human beings are able 
to do with their tongues, these intellects, deprived of the use of the 
tongue, apparently do through mental suggestion. Some of these 
people, children among them, were examined by able experts as to 
their sanity and were declared absolutely sane. This, my friends, is 

70 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

about all the evidence I am able to produce at this time which may 
help in answering the question raised. 

The next thing for us to do is to review the evidence presented 
and to draw our own conclusions. My personal conclusions are the 
following: We know that among human beings, those of noble 
character and sensible disposition will try to influence others to noble 
and sensible deeds, while those of the evil or silly dispositions will 
try to influence others, especially those of inferior intellect, to commit 
evil or foolish acts. This being the case with minds still connected 
with the human form, it is only natural to expect that the minds or 
intellects of those departed from this world, if they possess the power 
to do as they please, would act no different than they did when still 
connected with the body. It is also only natural to expect that if the 
subjective human mind is alive and conscious after physical death 
has set in, that it must be more able to work for good or evil, since 
it is relieved from all connection of the body and exists in a higher 
plane. Just as a person of normal intellect would improve mentally 
if raised from a position of poverty and drudgery to one which pro- 
vided him with plenty to subsist and time for recreation and study. 
I also consider it reasonable to believe that if those intellects exist at 
all after the body is dead and gone, that they can recognize each other 
as well as when still in the flesh. I further believe that they can 
distinguish the good-minded and intelligent from the evil-minded 
and ignorant ones, and that they will act toward each other very much 
the same as they did when still in the flesh with the probable exception 
of acting with more intelligence. Here, dear reader, you have the 
evidence which I am able to produce at this time of the existence or 
non-existence of life, gifted with intelligence, after physical death 
has set in, and the conclusions I have arrived at, after carefully con- 
sidering all the evidence obtainable and using my reasoning faculties 
to the best of my ability and with an absolutely honest and sincere 
desire to learn the truth. If any life exists after physical death has 
set in, it means that to be ignored by those superior in intellect is the 
worst that we have to expect in the so-called hereafter. In other 
words, the devil, hell, and purgatory stories are fakes. 

My Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan, and all other religious 
friends the world over, if those in the leadership of any or all of the 
religious systems in existence had come to a conclusion of this kind, 
they would undoubtedly have told you that they had discovered a 
great truth which the Lord had seen fit to reveal to them ; and that 
we, the know-nothing sheep, must accept it as the truth and go will- 
ingly through any silly ceremony they might attach thereto, under 
pain of ex-communication or something worse. There is no doubt in 
my mind that if I would go forth and proclaim these very words to be 
a revelation of God and would add a fire and brimstone speech, I 
would have, in a short time, a large number of humble followers. 

71 



Does Man Possess an Immortal Soul? 

For it seems true, to this very day, that most people, even the fairly 
intelligent, prefer blindly believing the lies and absurdities dished out 
by a fool or a knave to listening to arguments and reason. If they 
did the latter, it would soon free the world of that curse at whose 
behest millions of people were tortured and murdered, and which has 
enslaved and ruined whole nations, namely, bigotry and religious 
intolerance. 

But, dear reader, I will not lend myself to misleading the people, 
no matter how soft a position it might secure, or how much wealth 
there might be in store for me for committing such a crime on my 
fellow-men. I will tell with my tongue and pen the plain truth, as I 
see and understand it, and nothing but the truth, if it costs me my 
very life. Furthermore, I will always be willing and anxious to learn 
more, of that truth, and no human being in this wide world will be 
too low or humble for me to listen to and learn from. I, therefore, 
here and now boldly declare that while I admit that many indications 
point to the fact that conscious life does exist after physical death 
of the human body has set in, I am not positively sure of that fact, 
and every individual reader is at liberty to form from the evidence 
produced the conclusion I did or one of his or her own. 

In closing this chapter, I would like to point out again that since 
it has been positively proven that man does not possess an immortal 
soul which is rewarded or punished in the hereafter, and that heaven, 
hell, and purgatory are also myths which exist only in the minds of 
misinformed people as did witches for many centuries, and as the 
bogy man and Santa Claus exist to this day in the minds of children, 
we need no longer be in fear of death and the hereafter. No longer 
will the thought of death fill us with horror, for we will know death 
as what it really is, namely, the everlasting sleep, the eternal rest. 



72 



CHAPTER III. 



Did God Create Man, or Did Man Create God? 

The heading or title of this chapter will, no doubt, be somewhat 
of a puzzle to most religious readers. They will say, "Who ever 
heard of man creating God." In order, then, that the contents of 
this chapter may be properly understood, it becomes necessary to 
explain what is meant by the expression used above. The heading 
implies what the subject treated in this«hapter will be, namely, is 
there one or more conscious supernatural Beings or Spirits in exist- 
ence who created man in his present form separately and distinctly 
from other living creatures ; or did man evolutionize from lower forms 
of animal life, and is the God he now worships a creation of his own 
imagination? In other words, we ask ourselves this question: Are 
the doctrines that we humans were created by a Supreme Being or 
God in his own image, as taught by the different creeds, true, or are 
they not true? 

The fact that the human race did not begin its existence at the 
time claimed by the Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan, and other so- 
called holy Scriptures or revelations of God, nearly six thousand years 
ago, is not only established by scientists, but also by living witnesses, 
so to speak. The Chinese have records which prove that they had a 
civilization of a higher standard than the present one, seven thousand 
years ago. This one bit of evidence alone proves that a thousand 
years before the time the Holy Scripture tells us that the earth and 
two specimens of humanity were created, there were at least a few 
millions of human beings in existence and intellectually far enough 
advanced to establish a fairly civilized form of government. The 
latter fact further proves that they must have been on this earth for 
at least several thousand years before that time. So you see, my 
friends, that it is impossible that mankind was created at the time the 
so-called Scriptures of different creeds tell us they were. Besides 
this, science has proven beyond a doubt that this earth is not only a 
few thousand, but millions of years old. Almost daily discoveries 
are made which prove conclusively that this earth is many times six 
thousand years old. 

We also know to-day what apparently was not revealed to the 
man or men who wrote the Scripture, namely, that the sun, moon, and 

73 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

stars are also planets as large and larger than the one we are on. 
We know that some of them are still one mass of fiery substance, and 
that on others the surface is only cooled off sufficiently to permit 
plant and the lowest form of animal life to exist thereon. This earth 
must have been at one time in such a condition. This is proven by the 
volcanic eruptions and earthquakes which take place to this very day. 
Both volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are caused by water or other 
cold liquids coming in contact with the fiery mass still existent in the 
bowels of the earth. Just as a large baked apple or potato may be 
very cool on the outside and still very hot at the centre, so is this 
planet of ours cool on and a little below the surface, but very hot in 
the centre. If the fiery mass were not existent in the earth, volcanic 
eruptions or earthquakes would not take place. 

Every man, working in an iron, steel, or brass foundry for any 
length of time, has seen eruptions and earthquakes on a small scale, 
or what may be called an imitation thereof. If the sand in a mould 
is wet, or rammed too hard, especially the former, the metal, which 
is poured into the mould, will act exactly the same as the fiery mass 
does within the bowels of the earth. When the sand is rammed too 
hard or is slightly wet, it represents a miniature earthquake. The 
metal will bubble up and down or revolt within the mould, and in 
many cases, it will disarrange or work itself right through the outer 
crust of the sand. When the sand is very wet, a volcanic eruption, 
on a small scale, presents itself to us. The metal will not only spout 
out in great force through any opening that it finds, but will burst 
right through the sand, the bars, and any other obtsruction. I have 
seen the metal, in such cases, spout to the very roof and set the build- 
ing on fire, and many a foundry worker is minus one or both eyes 
on account of such occurrences. 

By this time, many readers will say, "We grant that this world is 
older than the Scripture tells us it is, and also that many thousands 
of years ago, millions of human beings were on this earth, but how 
could any human be on this planet without some supernatural Being 
putting him there." My answer is this: "I do not claim to know 
what no one else knows, neither do I profess to have received a 
revelation from God as to how all that we see came about, but I do 
claim that scientific experiments and careful observations have proven 
that life in the human body is not the breath of God, and that it is not 
impossible to form a reasonable conclusion as to how the human race 
originated and developed both physically and mentally. Further- 
more, it makes no difference at all how this earth came into being or 
how many millions of years it required for it to cool off sufficiently to 
permit life of any kind to exist thereon, or whether we humans are 
descendants from this or that animal. The only thing of interest to 
us is whether a conscious, supernatural Being or God created us as 
special creatures in our present form and manifested himself to us as 

74 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

our Creator. If this did not happen, then there remains only one 
theory to be considered. 

That theory is that we of the human race are actually nothing 
more than two-legged highly developed animals, and that the idea of 
a God or Gods impressed itself on our minds in a very natural way 
and through very natural causes and circumstances. If this is 
true, man is the creator of the God or Gods he worships, just as 
a child is the creator of the bogy man who exists in the imagination 
of the child only. Less than two hundred years ago in these very 
United States, as well as in many other parts of the world, men and 
women were burned as witches. Why, dear reader, do we not burn 
any witches to-day ? Yes, why do we not even hear of witches to-day ? 
Did their race die out? No, my friends, their race did not die out. 
The same kind of people are in existence to-day and in greater num- 
bers than then, and yet we do not see any witches being burned, or 
even hear witchcraft mentioned, at least not in any supposedly civi- 
lized country. It would not be unreasonable at all for anyone to ask 
how is it possible that we have no witches to-day, although the very 
same kind of people, who were once officially declared to be witches, 
are living now as then. If, on the other hand, you would say there 
are animals exactly like cows, but no cows, you would be laughed 
at. The answer to this seeming puzzle is : Cows were really in ex- 
istence in the past and are so to-day, while witches, just like the bogy 
man, never existed in any other form than in the imagination of the 
people of that time. As soon as the people, through new information 
and the use of their reasoning faculties, advanced intellectually above 
the child stage, they ceased to believe in witches, just as the child 
will cease to believe in a bogy man as soon as its little brain is 
developed enough to detect the fraud. In short, when people stopped 
believing in witches, witches ceased to exist. The question now 
arises : Is the supposed existence of one or more Gods a reality or 
only an imagination of the brain? This, my friends, we are entitled 
to know. The time will come, dear reader, when that knowledge will 
be as widespread as the knowledge that the earth moves around the 
sun is to-day. Just as we smile to-day when we think of the many fool- 
ish things our forefathers believed in and did through ignorance, so will 
our descendants smile in a few hundred years from now when they 
read of the foolish ideas we entertained at this late day; and our 
imagination or belief in a God as described to us will be surely in- 
eluded therein. 

In our search for the real facts in this case, I shall first call your 
attention to something of which I believe most of you know. Take 
clear water, boil it so that every living germ will be killed, then place 
a quart or two in a vessel of any kind, cover it tightly so that no 
foreign substance can enter and place it where the sun can shine upon 
it. After a few days look into the vessel, and you will find that liv- 

75 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

ing germs are within it. How could they get there, dear reader, if life 
cannot come into existence without the aid of a supreme Being or 
God? 

In my boyhood days, I noticed on innumerable occasions that in 
puddles of fresh water within a few days living things would appear, 
and that these in a few days more had become larger in size and 
different in shape. These fossil-like living substances developed in a 
very short time into what are known as frogs. This phenomenon 
and the experiment with the boiled water surely prove that a species 
of the male and female are not necessary to reproduce the lowest 
forms of life, and that the theory of evolution is not a mere dream. 
The evolution of the caterpillar into the butterfly is another phenome- 
non which gives positive proof of this. Most of us also know that it 
is a fact that there are plants in existence which eat and digest insects. 
These plants have a construction of small leaves in the shape of a 
mouth which open to receive an insect and then close upon it. In a 
certain length of time they re-open and on examining them you will 
find that every trace of the insect is gone. Where did it go to, dear 
reader? All indications in this case point to the fact that these ob- 
jects, still called plants, are in an advanced stage of evolution from 
plant life to animal life and are, in reality, part plant and part animal. 
A certain plant which grows on the seashore is said to lie down flat 
on the ground whenever any living being approaches it, which indi- 
cates that it possesses a sense of hearing or touch and sufficient animal 
life to move of its own accord. Both of these facts, if true, and the 
best authorities claim that they are, prove that evolution from a lower 
form to a higher form of life is in progress this very day. 

If it is necessary, dear reader, that everything in existence, es- 
pecially living creatures, must be created by a great conscious Person- 
ality or God, how did these live germs come in that water when all 
germs had been destroyed ? You may say God put them there. Then 
I shall ask you, why should a God begin with a shapeless thing which 
is invisible to the bare eye, and gradually evolutionize the same into 
what it was meant to be? Would not that be a strange thing for a 
mighty God to do? I claim that positive proof can be produced not 
only that the greatest thing in creation, life, becomes existant through 
other causes than the will of a conscious, supernatural Personality, 
but that the doctrine of evolution is based on indisputable facts. 

The best proof that the human race is a product of evolution or 
gradual development and not the descendants of two specimens 
created in the image of its Creator is the great difference in color, 
size, shape of head, and facial expression existant among the members 
of the human family. If there is still a doubt in your mind in this 
respect, picture to yourself the lowest and nearly lowest types of 
creatures in human or near human form, who look and act more like 
animals than like humans. There are to this day creatures in existence 

76 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

which are classed as human, whose physical make-up has all the ear- 
marks of having developed from a lower form, and whose moral and 
mental standard is below that of many animals. The creature above 
referred to look more like a monkey than like a human, have no lan- 
guage, but merely grunt or yell. They subsist on animal food and live 
in trees or in caves, like other creatures classed as animals. Those hu- 
mans which are a degree higher in development are very little better, 
morally or intellectually, and even the most highly developed of the 
human race are to this day far from being perfect. If this is the result 
of a creation by an almighty and alwise Personality nearly six thousand 
years after the creation is supposed to have taken place, then I pity 
both the Creator and those he created. Picture those conditions to 
yourself, then think a little and see if you can still believe that we 
of the human race have been especially created by an almighty, alwise, 
and righteous, supreme Personality. 

Does it not seem strange to you, dear reader, that after a period of 
nearly six thousand years, the handiwork of a God should be so 
incomplete? Think this over, religious reader. Children of really 
civilized parents, if raised among savages or animals, will become 
savage or animal-like. Furthermore, take two or more children and 
permit them to grow up without learning of any kind or association 
with other human beings, and you will see that in their actions they 
will be more animal-like than human. Practical experiments of this 
kind have been made by learned men and we are informed that the 
result was always the same. Here again is proof that circumstances 
and environments make the human what he is. 

It is estimated by scientists that specimens of the human race 
were in existence two hundred and fifty thousand years ago. When 
we think of the low moral and intellectual standard of a large per- 
centage of the supposedly civilized human race to-day, or look less 
than a thousand years back and consider the moral and intellectual 
conditions our own ancestors were in at that time, we can readily 
imagine what they must have been two hundred thousand or even 
fifty thousand years ago. Whether the first specimens of the human 
race were physically fully developed humans, we need not care. It is 
sufficient that we can form a fair estimate of their moral and intellec- 
tual standard. The fairest reasoning in that direction must bring us 
to the conclusion that they were animals, morally and intellectually, 
and perhaps human, or nearly human, in form. 

Having shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the human race 
is a product of evolution from lower forms of animal life and not 
created by a godly Personality, we shall endeavor to discover how the 
idea of a God originated. When you watch to-day, dogs, cats, 
or other animals, you will notice that when the sun sends 
its warm rays to the earth, the animals look for a sunny spot 
to lie and roll in. Their facial expression, their good humor, and 

77 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

every action of theirs will show you that they are pleased. You will 
also notice that when a cold rain, and especially when accompanied 
by thunder and lightning, drenches the earth, or a storm rages, that 
theses same animals look and act frightened and run for shelter. 
Where a number of animals congregate in weather of that kind under 
a tree or other shelter, you will notice that these animals will huddle 
together as closely as possible, each seeking to protect itself by the 
bodies of the others. As soon as the rain, thunder, lightning, or storm 
ceases, you will see that the animals feel relieved. One by one they 
leave the group in which they were, and come forth from their shelter 
as if satisfied that an enemy who threatened them had been driven 
away. 

The emotions manifested by animals and the actions correspond- 
ing thereto are very similar, if not exactly like, those of human beings 
under like circumstances. Those who may think that this is not so, 
I would advise to watch supposedly civilized people when placed in 
the same or a similar situation, and see if not each one of the group 
tries to hide behind another, in other words, without being aware of 
the fact, use the body of one of his companions as a shield. Does this 
not show that even we, who consider ourselves civilized humans, have 
still some traces of animal nature within us? What is true with 
animals at the present day was also true with animals many thousands 
of years ago, perhaps to a greater degree than now. Our ancestors 
who had then perhaps the human or near-human form, but were in 
other respects mere animals, undoubtedly experienced like feelings 
under like circumstances. 

Having reached this point, we shall trace the origin and the de- 
velopment of the belief in a God or Gods, which is so prevalent among 
the people to-day. We saw that the animals were cheerful in clear 
weather and sunshine and low-spirited and fearful during a rain or 
thunderstorm. It is only reasonable to conclude that, as soon as the 
animals in human form had developed intellectually to that stage 
where it became possible for them to use their reasoning faculties at 
all, they began to wonder what the cause could be for these beneficial 
and harmful manifestations they witnessed. For perhaps several 
centuries after this, these animals in near-human form imagined that 
a friend and an enemy were present somewhere, in the direction from 
where, the sun, the rain, and the lightning came, and thought of little 
more than to bestow a self-satisfied smile on one and a growl on the 
other. As their reasoning faculties developed, they were able to form 
a more complex imagination, and, therefore, a more definite idea as to 
the nature of the imaginable friend and enemy. Perhaps after another 
century or two, it dawned upon them, or at least some of them in a 
feeble sense, that, it might be well to do something which would reward 
their friend and appease their enemy. I believe the expression some 
-of them is more correct than to say them, which means all, for we 

78 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

know that in all ages it was always a small minority which first gave 
birth to progressive thoughts. In this we can also find the cause for 
the existence of a domineering and a domineered class of human 
beings. As soon as the idea of rewarding a friend and appeasing an 
enemy had developed in the brain of some of them, it is only natural 
that their next effort would be to discover how they could reward the 
one for the good he did, and bribe the other to induce him to do less or 
no harm to them. It- is only natural that they imagined their friend and 
enemy to be of a different nature and superior to themselves, and that 
the reward and bribe they gave must be different from that which they 
might give to one of their own kind. No matter what the first offer- 
ings may have consisted of, it is reasonable to assume that the offer- 
ings brought to this day by all religious creeds had their origin in this 
primitive thought. After perhaps another few centuries, their think- 
ing capacities were such as to enable them to form a higher concep- 
tion of that which they imagined to be a friend or enemy. That sun 
worship is the oldest on record surely substantiates the conclusion 
that the sun was the first object of admiration by our ancestors in 
primitive times. The God of thunder, who was considered an evil 
spirit, was the next God created. 

Thus their intellect slowly, but surely, developed, until their con- 
ception of what we term God was such that they pictured to them- 
selves a good and evil superhuman power or spirit, instead of a mere 
friend and enemy little better than themselves. The belief in a super- 
natural power or being in a crude form was now established. In 
other words the first God was created. Those, in whose brain the 
new ideas first developed, undoubtedly became the leaders of the 
others. Leaders, no doubt, quickly multiplied. Many leaders neces- 
sitated the establishing of many Gods, for the plurality of leadership 
is undoubtedly the cause of the plurality of Gods, just as in the last 
few centuries many leaders were the cause of many creeds and sects. 
There are as many sects among the idol or plural-God worshippers as 
among the one-God worshippers, and they hate and fight each other, 
just as their brethren of the higher order. The moon, the stars, the 
sky, animals, rocks, and many other objects were deified. This was 
undoubtedly done for two reasons : First to please all good and evil 
spirits that might possibly be in existence, and second, through the 
desire on the part of the leaders to outdo each other. Their conception 
of spirits or gods and their mode of worship changed in the same 
proportion as their intellects developed. If such be the case, the 
primitive conceptions of a God or Gods and the mode of worship 
of a large per cent of the human race to this day prove one of two 
things. Either they did not develop intellectually at all for many 
centuries, or they are a later product of evolution. 

We spoke above of sects among the idol worshippers. This 
leaves the question open : When and how did creeds and sects origin- 

79 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

ate? A creed or sect is an organized effort to propagate a certain 
doctrine. Ancient history tells us that such sects were in existence 
and at war with each other long before the one-God theory was 
thought of by anyone. This must lead us to the conclusion that the 
early leaders organized their followers as soon as they themselves were 
intellectually far enough advanced to think of such a thing. At first 
they doubtless had the good of all in view, but when they saw the 
personal advantages to be derived, they quickly changed front. From 
that time to this, the efforts of those in religious control have not only 
been directed to furthering their own ends, but they have done all in 
their power to keep their followers from knowing as much as they did 
themselves, which enabled them to turn over to their successors a 
humble and helpless lot of sheep. This has been going on for many 
centuries, and the end has not yet come. 

Now let us pick up the thread where we left it. As time passed 
and the intellect of man developed, more leaders appeared and more 
Gods were created, not only in their imagination, but also in material 
reality, so to speak. They, at least, made something they could see 
and to which they could address themselves. I refer to images or 
idols. To these idols, of which each, in their opinion, represented a 
good or an evil spirit, whose protection they sought or whose wrath 
they wished to appease, they brought, in the past, human, as well as 
other sacrifices, and to this day the plural-God worshippers bring 
vegetable and animal offerings. To one God called Moloch, who was 
worshipped until about 1500 before Christ, as many as one hundred 
children were fed on each feast day. He could only be appeased by 
human sacrifice. The stomach of the image which represented this 
particular god was an oven in which fire was started on feast days, 
and the babies were thrown as sacrifices. Many similar offerings 
were brought to other supposedly good or evil spirits. Had these 
early humans been permitted to continue their mental development 
unhampered, there can be no doubt that to-day the imaginary God or 
Gods would have disappeared, just as the imaginary witches did. 
But that was not to be. Partly through their own ignorance, and 
partly to impress their followers with their own importance, the 
leaders continued to invent new Gods until almost every conceivable 
thing had been deified. As soon as they had acquired the necessary 
knowledge and skill, they painted pictures of their imaginary Gods. 
Next the leaders conceived the idea of a separate place in which 
to worship their Gods and bring sacrifices. Here we have the in- 
troduction of the temple or the church. By this time they knew, 
and if the rank and file did not know, the leaders informed them 
of the fact that the place where the idols stood and received their 
honor and offerings was a holy place, and that their Gods wanted 
only certain individuals to administer to them. Then the priest- 
hood was established. From that time on, the leaders or priests, 

80 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

as we may call them, now did everything in their power to strength- 
en their organization by claiming for themselves special power and 
holiness, through which their followers were kept in fear and sub- 
mission. This developed to such an extent that not only the members 
of one organization or sect would fight those of another for any 
imaginary reason, but at the behest of the leaders or priests, they 
tortured and killed members of their own organization, if they dared to 
do or say anything contrary to the wishes of the leaders. 

The greatest crime one could then commit in the opinion of the 
leaders or priesthood was to enlighten his fellow-man. For instance, 
the rank and file were not to know that the idols were powerless, and 
that the eatables and gold brought as offerings were not made use 
of by the Gods, but by the priests themselves. Had this system of 
keeping people in mental slavery never been installed, we would have 
to-day a race of free men and women with the spirit of brotherhood 
among them, instead of a race full of hatred and mentally and econom- 
ically enslaved. That prayers and ceremonies originated in early 
days, no one with any sense will deny, but that is of little im- 
portance in dealing with the subject under discussion. Of more 
importance is the fact that each of the different types of humanity 
made the images of their Gods look as nearly like themselves as their 
skill permitted, which proves that the Gods they worshipped are their 
own handiwork, according to their own imagination. The black man's 
God is black, the Chinese God looks like a Chinese, the Indian God 
looks like an Indian, et cetera. A learned Frenchman once said, "If 
the camel had a God, it would surely have a hump." It is also a fact 
that the more savage the maker of and believer in idols is, the more 
cruel looking figures his images are. This again proves that the God 
theory is nothing more than an imagination, in other words, that man 
is the creator of the God he worships. 

The idols representing the evil Gods were made to look as vicious 
as possible. This was no doubt a scheme of the leaders to make sure 
that they would inspire their followers with fear. The one-God the- 
orists changed the name of the evil spirit and called him devil. But 
while they changed his name and place of habitation, his occupation 
has remained about the same. To these evil Gods they brought 
generally human sacrifices, while the good Gods were contented with 
vegetable, gold, and silver, or animal offerings. Then as now, it was 
the fear of the evil spirits or gods rather than the love for the good 
Gods that kept the people religious and under the control of their 
leaders. The evil spirits of the idol worshippers and the devil of the 
one-God worshippers serve one purpose, and that purpose is to scare 
people into submission. I have heard it said that if there were no 
devil there would be no religion. There is more truth in that sen- 
tence than most people think. For to this very day, no matter what 
God or Gods people believe in, it is fear of punishment here or here- 

81 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

-after that keeps religious bodies intact. At this point, many readers 
will say, "We know that the heathen Gods are man-made, but we 
believe in a true God and not a man-made one." Our investigation, 
I hope, will enlighten us on this point also. Let us look for the evi- 
dence in the supposedly inspired Book, or holy Scripture. This source 
will surely be accepted by all religious people as a reliable one. From 
the supposed creation of Adam and Eve until the time of Abraham, 
who was born two thousand three hundred and forty-eight years after 
'the creation, we hear of no one preaching a doctrine of a one and only 
God, as in contrast with the doctrine of plural Gods. It is true we 
read of God sending the flood and other calamities to punish those who 
did not do according to his will. The story of the creation, the flood, 
and other supposed occurrences were written long after the time they 
are supposed to have happened, and by men who adopted, or what is 
more correct, invented the one-God theory. These men naturally 
wrote things as they saw them from their own point of view. We 
'hear nothing of any rules or commandments until the time of Moses, 
six hundred years after Abraham. The question now arises : Who 
was the first human being who believed in a one and only God, and 
how did this come about, especially when there were no teachers of 
such a doctrine in existence. The old testament, which we are told 
is the word ot God, and the Jewish history, which we must surely 
recognize as the oldest history of the one-God theory in existence, tell 
~us that Abraham was the first human being who ever thought of the 
existence of a one and only God who rules this universe. The same 
•authorities also tell us that Abraham was the first human being ever 
circumcized, in other words, he was the first Jew. The Jews were the 
first believers in a one and only God. Abraham, being the first Jew, 
and, therefore, father of the Jewish religion, must also have been the 
father or originator of the one-God theory. The old testament tells 
us that an angel appeared to Abraham and told him of God's wish to 
establish the Jewish or one-God religion. 

The Jewish tradition gives us the following information : The 
father of Abraham, who was an idol worshipper as all others of his 
time, was also an idol manufacturer. He had a storeroom full of 
images or idols of different sizes to represent the different Gods. 
These he sold to religious organizations and to private individuals, 
just like pictures and statues of saints are sold to-day. Young Abra- 
ham, the son, surely must have helped his father in the manufacture 
of these idols and, therefore, knew how these supposed Gods were 
brought into being and what they consisted of. Having a younger 
and brighter mind than his father and being perhaps more honest 
than his daddy he began to think about these stone, wooden, or clay 
images, and the godliness and power attributed to them. His thinking 
on this subject naturally convinced him of their uselessness as Gods. 
Being also of a religious frame of mind and not able to account for all 

82 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

that he saw, other than that some higher power caused them to be, 
Abraham conceived the idea that some invisible but mighty Power or 
Being must be the real cause or creator of all that he saw. It is im- 
possible for anyone to say for how long thoughts of that kind had 
troubled his mind before he had a chance to express them to others and 
demonstrate the truth of at least part ot this new conviction. But 
his opportunity came; and he made good use of it. It happened that 
Abraham's father had to make a trip to another city, and, there being 
no express trains at that time, he required many days and perhaps 
weeks for his going and returning. During that time Jewish history 
tells us, young Abraham, who had been left in care of his father's 
storeroom, collected a number of people around him and explained his 
new convictions to them. As they were unwilling to believe that the 
Gods which their fathers and grandfathers had worshipped were the 
powerless and useless things he described them to be, he proceeded 
to demonstrate the fact to them. With a club or hammer, he demol- 
ished all the idols in his father's storeroom, except the largest one, 
which he spared for a purpose. Some of those looking on, and observ- 
ing that no punishment visited Abraham from any of the supposed 
Gods which he had demolished, and seeing the pieces of stone, wood, 
or clay lying about, agreed with Abraham that these supposed Gods 
were no Gods at all. To that number of converts he undoubtedly 
added some from day to day. When his father returned and ques- 
tioned him about the breaking of the images, he pointed to the large 
idol he had spared and in whose folded arms he had placed the club 
or hammer, and said, "That is the culprit. He broke all the others." 
The old man told his son that it was impossible for that image of stone 
to break even the smallest of the other images. Abraham, the son, 
then spoke thus : "My dear father, if this large image has not power 
enough to break one of the other images, how, then, can you believe 
that it has godly powers, and can do all the things claimed for it?" 
We are told that Abraham did not convert his father, that instead, 
he had to flee from his father's home and country. Here we see the 
one-God idea originating in the mind of one individual and gaining 
a foot-hold through the help of fortunate circumstances. My friends, 
religious and otherwise, the story of Abraham breaking the idols and 
converting relatives and others is written in Jewish history and in the 
Coran or Mohammedan Scripture, and is partly substantiated in the 
old testament. The old testament tells us nothing of the breaking of 
the idols, but it does say that Abraham had to flee from his father's 
house into another land. No matter how unwilling you may be, 
religious reader, to give up your old idea about God, the information 
from these three sources, coupled with the fact that history knows of 
no one-God theory up to the time of Abraham, and that he was the 
first human being who conceived the idea that a single godly Personal- 
ity might be the Creator of all things, proves conclusively that Abra- 

83 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

ham was the inventor of the one-God theory. In other words, Abra- 
ham is the creator of the supposedly one and only God. 

In a very similar way, Bonifacius, who is called the apostle of 
the Germans, made converts to Christianity. The ancestors of the 
Germans who were then idol worshippers had a large oak dedicated 
to the God of thunder. Bonifacius, knowing that the people believed 
that this Thunder-God would strike anyone dead who dared to injure 
this oak, volunteered to chop the oak down and take the consequences. 
They gave him permission to do so, expecting at every blow he gave 
to see a thunderbolt come down and strike him dead. Many of those 
who saw the oak fall and nothing happen to the perpetrator of this 
supposedly sacrilegious deed, lost faith in their plural Gods and be- 
came Christians. 

Both of the occurrences mentioned have in all probability hap- 
pened as well as many like them before and since. To this day, if you 
wish to convince people of a truth, you must give to many a demon- 
stration of some kind before they will admit the truth, no matter how 
clear the facts may be. The story that an angel appeared to Abraham, 
no fairly intelligent person will believe, for if a one and only God as 
described to us really existed, why should he wait for these many 
years before making himself known to his children on earth? No, 
dear reader, no godly Personality at all worthy of the name God, 
especially not a righteous, loving Father, would have waited nearly 
two thousand and five hundred years before making His own true 
Self known to those whom he created in His own image. This is 
simply another link in the long chain of evidence which proves that the 
supposed one and only God, like the manifold or plural Gods, is noth- 
ing more than an invention or imagination of the human mind. 

As we have seen, Abraham, the first believer in the one and only 
God, was born two thousand three hundred forty-eight years after 
the creation is supposed to have taken place. This was surely a long 
time for a God to wait before making himself known to man, but even 
then we hear nothing of any one-God theory being taught by anyone. 
On the contrary, we know that Abraham's father lived and died a 
heathen. Yes, Abraham himself was a heathen until his so-called 
conversion. Abraham is supposed to have been a young man when 
God first spoke to him, and according to the old testament, he was 
ninety and nine years old when he and all the male members of his 
household were circumcized. For reference, see Genesis XVI : 24. 
This act of Abraham's was the beginning of the first Jewish congrega- 
tion, for the old testament tells us that he who is not circumcized has 
no favor before God. Not until Moses' time, or six hundred years 
later, do we hear anything of laws given to the Jews. Moses was the 
first law giver, for the Jews at least. This seems very neglectful on 
the part of a God, who possesses the great power and wisdom at- 
tributed to the supposedly one and only God. 

84 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

The truth of the matter is this: The facts given show that 
Abraham and those who took his place must have had just as much 
trouble to propagate the Jewish religion as Christ, Mohammed, and 
other reformers had to spread their ideas. Just as our earliest fore- 
fathers conceived the idea of a something supernatural which de- 
veloped into the plural Gods, Abraham conceived the idea of a one and 
only God. Perhaps others before him had the same doubts and enter- 
tained the same ideas as Abraham, but fear or other reasons kept them 
from making their opinions known. Abraham had to flee for his life 
when he told of his convictions and tried to convert others, just as 
many other reformers have had to do since that time. We also read 
that on two occasions Abraham denied that his wife was his and per- 
mitted her to become the wife of another, out of fear that harm might 
be done to him in a strange land on account of Sarah's beauty. This 
is a cowardly act even for an ordinary man, but how much more so 
for one whom God had selected to be the father of a great race and 
to whom God is supposed to have spoken and appeared in person. 
Abraham surely gave little evidence of the great faith he is supposed 
to have had in God, especially after God had assured him that He 
would always be with him. 

Circumcision which, according to the supposedly Holy Scripture, 
was inaugurated many years after the Lord is said to have first spoken 
to Abraham, was done for no other purpose than that, in the opinions 
of the Jewish leaders, it was considered a necessity to check and pre- 
vent a disease prevalent among the people at that time. The washing 
three times daily, the prohibition of pork, and other hygienic rules 
were also given in the interest of good health and decency. The ten 
commandments were given by Moses when he saw that he could not 
control the people by his own efforts. Therefore, he pretended to have 
been in communication with God, who gave him the commandments, 
and then threatened the people with punishment, if they disobeyed the 
laws which God had given. Something of such a nature was neces- 
sary, or at least advisable at that time, just as it is sometimes advis- 
able to use a bogy man story, instead of force. 

If Abraham did not originate the one-God idea, and if it is true 
that a God, as described, existed, who selected Abraham as pioneer 
messenger of the new and only true gospel, is it not reasonable 
to expect that this God would have helped the father of this great 
man also to become converted to the true faith? Surely it must have 
pained Abraham to see his father whom he loved remain an idol 
worshipper, after the true faith had been established. This, dear 
reader, was a case parallel to many others before and since. 

History records many instances where a young man became an 
advocate of a new idea, while the conservative father not only remain- 
ed unconverted but often became his son's bitterest enemy and perse- 
cutor. This seems to have been the case with Abraham and his 

85 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

father. According to the Scripture, the Lord appeared and talked 
personally to Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, and many others, and 
with Abraham he walked and dined. Why does He not appear to 
people to-day, even the holiest? When and why did God cease to 
do this ? Can it be that He changed His mind about the propriety of 
associating with mere humans? I shall answer this, dear reader. 
As long as the people could be made to believe that a God would 
appear and talk to mere man, He appeared and spoke. When they 
ceased to believe these things, the Lord ceased to speak or appear to 
people, just as Santa Claus or the bogy man ceases to come when 
the children stop believing in them, or witches ceased to exist when 
most people ceased to believe in their existence. 

To this day there are people on this planet who believe that God 
personally appears to and converses with some of their number. The 
child who believes in a bogy man, and sees him standing by the win- 
dow or the door ready to take him or her are close counterparts to 
these people. I could mention a number of religious reformers within 
the last ten centuries, who claimed and whose followers believed that 
they had communicated with God, and that great secrets had been 
revealed to them. As previously stated, there are to this day crea- 
tures in human form in existence who are mentally and morally nothing 
more than animals, and many others hardly a grade above them. 
Here I must remind you again, dear reader, that the above mentioned 
fact furnishes positive proof that evolution in that respect is in opera- 
tion to this very day. We also know that people highly civilized and 
far advanced in art and industry were in existence when the ancestors 
of those who are to-day considered civilized were little better than 
savages. 

If a conscious, intelligent, and mighty God created a male and 
female of the human race in his own image, and we are their descend- 
ants, why should such a great difference in physical appearance and 
mental development exist? Why should it be necessary for those 
creatures in God's image to require hundreds of centuries to progress, 
at least intellectually, from the rank of animals to that of the human 
being? If a God is the Creator of man, why should a child be born 
without arms or feet, with one hand a cat's paw, with partly animal 
features, deaf and dumb, with certain marks on the face, et cetera, 
simply because the mother when pregnant with that child was fright- 
ened by a certain animal or otherwise? Why should a child be born 
prematurely and die immediately, because the mother had to work 
too hard or met with an accident? Why should a child be born an 
idiot, a cripple, or diseased, just because one or both parents were so 
affected? How is it, if a God is the Creator and Preserver of mankind, 
that to-day through the progress made by the human brain, we can 
save the lives of infants who are born before the natural time, by the 
use of an incubator and often an imitation of one, without which they 

86 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

would surely die? This is made possible by knowing the exact tem- 
perature a not fully developed creature needs, and by placing the 
infant in such a temperature as soon as born. For lack of that 
knowledge, many millions of human beings have died a few minutes 
or a few hours after seeing the light of day. 

Now, my friends, if it is possible to-day for mere man to save 
those lives, why did not God do this during these many centuries, or 
why did he not give man that knowledge long ago? On the other 
hand, if it is the will of a God as described to us that these children 
should not live, why does he permit mere man to save them to-day 
by artificial means? • In centuries past, millions of people died a pre- 
mature death because of injuries received who could have been saved, 
had man then had the knowledge and skill he has to-day. To-day 
people dying are kept alive artificially for days and weeks. People 
who are to all appearances dead are brought back to life. The vital 
organs of man, the heart itself, the most necessary one to life can 
to-day be removed, patched up, and replaced in good working order, 
just like a piece of machinery. Skin and bones of one body can be 
grafted to that of another, yes, the blood, the very essence of life can 
be transferred from the veins 01 one human to those of another. I 
have before me an article which tells of a certain doctor in a New York 
hospital who formed a perfect hand on a boy from bones and flesh 
taken from some other part of the boy's body. 

If a God, as described to us, is the Creator of mankind, how is 
it that mere man is able to destroy life created but still unborn, and 
open or close the gate of life, so to speak? Thousands of women in 
the dark past, who were considered barren or unfruitful could have 
been productive, had it not been for the lack of knowledge and skill 
which we possess to-day. Surely, if we humans were especially cre- 
ated by a mighty and alwise God, who wanted us to be what we are 
and without whose knowledge and consent nothing can happen, he 
would not permit barren women to be made fruitful, and fruitful 
women made barren, which is done in thousands of instances to-day. 
Neither would a God of that kind permit the life, which he planted, 
to be destroyed at will by mere man. Innumerable other instances 
could be mentioned to prove to anyone willing to reason that man 
came on this earth without the assistance of any supernatural person- 
ality, and multiplied in the same natural way that all other living 
creatures did and do. 

Scientists may disagree as to the exact length of time that crea- 
tures in human form have existed on this earth. Yet they all agree 
on the principal point under discussion, namely, that the human race 
was not especially created, but evolved through many thousands of 
centuries from the lowest form of animal life to its present state of 
physical and intellectual development. Preachers of all creeds and 
denominations will admit when confronted by one or more men whom 

87 



Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? 

they can trust that they themselves do not believe what they preach 
to others. When asked why they practice such willful deception, 
they say that the time has not yet come when to the ignorant people, 
the whole truth can be told. In fact, many of the clergy claim that it 
is necessary for them to preach hell-fire and brimstone in the hereafter 
to keep the ignorant in check. A very educated and highly respected 
Catholic priest said to me, in the presence of my wife, that what I said 
in reference to religion was true, but that I was too radical, that I 
wanted these changes brought about too quickly. A Lutheran min- 
ister just smiled when I asked him whether the God, who said in the 
ten commandments "Thou shalt not kill" had any relation to the God 
who, according to the old testament, ordered the killing of men, women 
andchildren by wholesale. I hope, dear reader, that I have produced 
sufficient proof to convince you that we humans were not especially 
created by a Supernatural Being or God. 

In conclusion I will say that, if you call the unconscious forces of 
nature, God, then I will admit that God made man through the process 
of evolution. But if God is to be conceived in the same sense that he is 
preached to us, then I claim that man created the God he believes in, 
the one and only God, as well as the plural ones. 



88 



CHAPTER IV. 

Is It True That Religion, as Preached and Practiced to this Day, by 

Any and All Creeds in Existence the World Over, Is the Great 

Moral Force or Agency for Good That We Are Asked to 

Believe It Is, or Is the Very Opposite the Case? 

The above heading or title, which contains an unusually large 
number of words, is really nothing more or less than a question asked 
and implies that the contents of this chapter shall be a complete and 
truthful answer thereto. When I think of all the facts I have before 
me in relation to the subject under discussion, I feel confident that 
the answer will not disappoint you, dear reader. My reason for using 
so many words in naming the title of this chapter is no other than a 
desire on my part to leave no doubt in the mind of any reader, as to 
the full import of the subject or subjects under discussion in this 
chapter. No doubt, anyone who is old enough to know how to read 
has heard the following expressions made. "We must have religion; 
we could not do without religion. Oh my, people would kill each 
other on the street if it were not for religion and those who preach it." 
Many people who personally have no use at all for religion say that 
for the children and the ignorant, religion is necessary. What do all 
these expressions mean, especially when made by good and intelligent 
men and women, who themselves have no respect for religion of any 
kind. Dear reader, they mean, yes, they prove that the human mind 
has been so enslaved by those damnable religious doctrines of all 
descriptions, which are responsible for at least ninety per cent, of all 
the evil committed the world over, that it is next to impossible for 
most people to release themselves from its clutches. 

The main question to be answered in this chapter is whether the 
religious teachings of all creeds the world over have been in the past 
and are to this day the great moral force we are asked to believe they 
have always been. Now, friends, when we call anything a force, we 
understand thereby any cause or agency that produces or tends to pro- 
duce something. An evil force can only be expected to bring evil 
results. From a moral force, the word moral meaning everything 
that pertains to what is good and righteous, we have surely a perfect 
right to expect only good and noble results. In this case, we have a 
right to expect that religion inspires people to noble deeds by instil- 

89 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

ling good and noble thoughts into the minds of those under its in- 
fluence. If religion has been in the past and is to this day a great 
moral force, or, in other words, an agency for good, the effects of its 
operations for many centuries must bear evidence thereof. Now, then, 
dear reader, let us begin our search for the facts in the case. 
Before going into the heart and kernel of the subject before us, it is 
necessary that we remind ourselves of the fact that it is commonly 
understood that religion is not only supposed to be a great moral 
force for everything that is good, but that it is also credited with being 
of godly origin and under godly guidance. In fact, it s suipposed to 
be the will of a God or Gods, as the case may be, put into practice. 

It is very important that we keep this fact in mind, as we shall 
later see. In searching for the truth, we shall, in this case, follow the 
same rule as in previous chapters, namely, begin as nearly as possible 
at the- very root of things, consult the best authorities, or select the 
strongest evidence we can find. Although there can be no doubt that 
people were persecuted for differing from others in their religious 
views, before the one-God theory was invented, we shall content our- 
selves by beginning with the sufferings the Jews, according to the 
old testament, had to undergo at the hands of the Egyptians. These 
sufferings were imposed upon them for no other reason than that they 
had a different conception of the God they worshipped from those who 
oppressed and persecuted them. Next we read in that same supposed- 
ly inspired Book, that, after the Jews had been delivered from their 
enemies and become masters of the situation, they soon forgot how 
it felt to be persecuted by others, as the following will show. If the 
Bible history in that respect is true, the Jews slaughtered hundreds of 
thousands of human beings during the four hundred years of their 
reign. This was also done for no other reason than that those whom 
they slew were not of the same faith as themselves, for the Bible tells 
us that their only excuse for murdering thousands of men, women, and 
children at a time was, that those whom they killed did not worship 
the one and only God, or, in other words, the God of the Jews. This 
murdering, which lasted for a period of four hundred years, was, 
according to the Holy Book, ordered, aided, and abetted by the good 
Lord Himself. Next the Bible tells us of the Jews being tortured in 
every conceivable manner by the idol worshippers, again for no other 
reason than that they differed in their opinions as to which was the 
proper God to worship. The new testament tells us, that for the same 
reason the followers of Christ were persecuted by idol worshippers. 
These are the leading incidents of that kind of which the Bible, or the 
supposed holy Scripture, tells us. Now, dear reader, bear in mind 
that every act of persecution committed at this early date by each 
party whenever they had the power to do so was committed for relig- 
ious reasons only, and by believers in the one-God theory, as well as 
by the idol or plural-God worshippers. 

90 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

Let us now see what evidence in this respect history furnishes us 
The persecution of the early Christians by the Romans up to the reign 
of King Constantine about 325 A. D., when the faithful idol worship- 
pers found enjoyment in seeing other human beings torn to pieces by 
wild animals, is to my knowledge the first incident recorded in history. 
Again, my friend, the only reason was difference of religious opinion. 
Through the conversion of King Constantine, the then Christians 
received protection and gained rights and privileges. The leaders or 
priesthood soon discovered that rights and privileges mean strength, 
and they were not slow in making use of that power. They began by 
leaving the path di Christ and the apostles, and by discarding the 
simple honest life. Then they adopted and imposed on their followers 
all kinds of superstitious doctrines ; elevated the once humble clergy 
to princes of the church; constituted themselves masters and rulers 
over kings, princes, and people the world over; and waged wars to 
make converts and to gain worldly riches. 

This culminated in Europe in what I believe to be the master- 
piece of all religious persecutions, the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, 
which was inaugurated by Pope Innocent III, and lasted from about 
1215 to 1820 or fully six hundred years. It is estimated that during 
the Inquisition, two million people were tortured or killed, and at least 
two hundred thousand burned at the stake, also for no other than re- 
ligious reasons. In this campaign of killing to please the Lord, the 
most cruel instruments of torture ever invented were used, such as the 
thumbscrew, the rack, an instrument to tear one's bones apart, the 
iron virgin, an instrument which enclosed its victims and slowly, but 
surely, pressed spikes in their eyes, ears, and other vital parts of the 
body until death relieved them, pincers to tear out one's tongue, irons 
to burn out one's eyes, and many others equally as cruel. 

Now, my friends, my Christian friends especially, who was it that 
committed all these cruel murders, and what crimes had the victims 
committed ? The perpetrators of these most inhumane acts were pro- 
fessed apostles of God, the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy 
Ghost, and the victims were men, women, and even children, who 
dared to think for themselves and differ with those in power, or who 
were suspected of doing so. The leaders of the Mohammedan move- 
ment, just as those of the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian religious move- 
ments, used the sword to make converts and to gain worldly riches, 
Their victims undoubtedly also reach the million mark. The Mor- 
mons in a much later day did the same thing in the United States : In 
each of these and innumerable like cases, the rank and file or faithful, 
as the leaders call them, were made to believe that the true God had 
been imposed upon, and that it was their duty to fight for the true 
Lord and God. In other words, the poor, ignorant followers were 
used by corrupt leaders as instruments to enslave and murder others 
of their kind. So much to show the general godly and brotherly 

91 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

spirit which emanated from these religious teachings, and the noble 
acts to which it inspired its adherents. 

Now, friends, especially those of you who really believe that relig- 
ious organizations and teachings, as constituted and taught in the past 
and to this day, were instrumental in bringing about and preserving 
civilization, I ask to follow the more detailed evidence presented from 
now on. Then do your own thinking, and pass your own judgment. 
We can only present here a part of the most glaring evidence in this 
respect, for all the evidence obtainable would make a book three times 
the size of this one. The first that we read of in Bible history where 
two distinct religious systems or creeds existed, is where we are told 
of the Jews residing among the Egyptians. And here, too, is the first 
we hear of one faction of the people being enslaved and tortured by 
the other and stronger faction for the crime of having a different idea 
as to who and what God is, and what ceremonies one must go through 
to please him. Remember that I said this is according to Bible his- 
tory. The history of the Chinese and other eastern nations tells us 
that members of the human race were in existence and possessed a 
civilized form of government nearly two thousand years before the 
Bible says that the world had been created. There is also evidence in 
existence that among different factions or denominations of plural-God 
worshippers, which were brought about by leaders with honest or 
dishonest motives, bloody warfare was carried on for the slightest 
difference in their religious beliefs and ceremonies. In order that not 
one of the different religious creeds should have any reason to com- 
plain of my being unfair toward them, I shall give a rough sketch of 
the record that each of the different religious systems or creeds has 
made for itself. Let us begin with the Jews. The old testament or 
supposed holy Scripture informs us, that as soon as the Jews were in 
control, and powerful enough to subdue others, they forgot all about 
the unpleasantness of being enslaved and otherwise persecuted, and 
they started right in to enslave and murder other and weaker portions 
of the human race for no other reason than that these people differed 
with them in their religious beliefs and practices. 

The supposedly Holy Scripture further informs us that that 
supposedly all-loving and righteous Supreme Being, the fountain 
of everything that is good, not only gave the Jews the privilege 
to enslave and kill those not of their particular creed, but commanded 
them to commit these evil deeds. Remember, dear reader, that the 
perpetrators of these inhumane deeds were religious people, who com- 
mitted them in the name of religion. This enslaving and murdering 
of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children by the Jews, 
as a religious body, in the four hundred years when they had the upper 
hand, is to my knowledge the only deeds of that kind recorded against 
them in any history. The results of their activities in that direction 
during that one period are quite sufficient to prove that the Jews as a 

92 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

religious body, were no different from any of the other religious creeds. 
I firmly believe that if more opportunity had been offered them to 
commit acts of such a nature, they would have made good use thereof. 
No, my Jewish reader, this record is not any work of mine or that of 
any other individual whom you might suspect of being unfavorably 
inclined towards the Jewish race. This record is taken from the old 
testament, the Holy Scripture so-called, the best authority there is, 
in your own estimation. 

If you have read the previous chapters, you have seen that this 
record accuses that man Moses, of whom you think so much as a man 
of the right type, not only of ordering men, women, and children to 
be slain in battle, and the killing of all the male children who were 
brought into camp as prisoners, but that he even ordered the killing of 
three thousand people of his own race and religion, simply because 
they had not been steadfast in their belief in his absence. Joshua 
and other recognized leaders of the Jews were, in that respect, not one 
bit better than Moses. This shows that these professed religious 
leaders, these supposedly ordained representatives of the Lord, who, 
according to the old testament, had personally spoken to the Lord, 
thought no more of enslaving, robbing, and killing men, women, and 
children by the thousands at one time, than we think of killing so 
many flies or other insects. 

This is an example of the good and noble deeds this so-called 
great moral force, religion, inspires those who are under its influence 
to. Keep this in mind, dear reader. Although the religious beliefs 
and doctrines of the idol or plural-God worshippers are not recognized 
by the so-called civilizel world today as a moral factor of any conse- 
quence, nevertheless, we must recognize the fact that the motives of 
the believers in a number of Gods are very similar to, if not the same, 
as those of the believers in the supposed one and only God. This, in 
turn, spells that their religious movements and its teachings are at 
least supposed to inspire both the leaders and the followers With good 
and noble thoughts and deeds. The overwhelming evidence avail- 
able proves that, with those people as with others, it had the very 
opposite effect. For history tells us that these idol or plural-God 
worshippers did not only enslave, torture, and kill thousands of people 
who differed from them in religious opinions, but that they sacrificed 
many thousands of lives, young and old, especially children, of their 
own race and religion. In fact, they committed these many crimes 
on their own, as well as on strangers, only because of the influence 
religion wielded over them. In other words, the religious teachings 
they received made them brutes and criminals. 

Aside from the fact that the religious doctrines of some of the 
cults of the idol worshippers demand that those who are old and in- 
active shall be put to death by relatives perhaps many years before 
they would have died of natural causes, and that a widow shall permit 

93 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

herself to be burned alive with the corpse of her husband, we read 
that as many as a hundred of little innocent babies in one day being 
brought by their own mothers to be thrown into the stomach of one of 
their supposed Gods to be consumed by the fire raging within. Those 
relatives who killed their own fathers and mothers when they became 
old and, in their opinion, useless, the women who permitted them- 
selves to be burned alive, and those who set them afire and the moth- 
ers who brought their babies to be sacrificed in such a cruel manner to 
a supposed God were just as human and undoubtedly just as sincere 
as those who believe in the one-God theory. Here, as in other cases, 
dear- reader, it was the religious teachings they received which made 
them think that it was not only right, but their duty, to do what they 
did. The supposedly holy Scriptures of these pagan people contain 
just as grand and noble sayings as those of any of the one-God theo- 
rists. But we have seen that noble sayings had no better influence on 
them than they had on the believers in a one and only God. 

Ignorance is the natural parent of brutish instinct. This, linked 
with superstition and fear of a bogy man, implanted and preserved 
through all religious teachings is the sole cause for the inhumane acts 
perpetrated by all religious people. This and this only has at all 
times been the result of the teachings and activities of all religious 
creeds that ever existed, only to a greater or lesser degree. In many 
instances, and in many countries, the stronger or dominant religious 
creeds succeeded in having their particular creed and doctrine de- 
clared the national religion, and in all such cases, the civil and military 
power of that government was and is to this day used when and 
wherever possible to suppress or hinder the propagation of the doc- 
trines of any and all other creeds or denominations. From 1795 to 
1803, the imperial armies of China devastated five provinces, actually 
slaughtering their entire population of non-Confucionists to the last 
man. In some countries, it is still a crime to believe in the doctrines of 
any other creed than the one recognized as the national religion. The 
most horrible tortures and even death have been meted out as punish- 
ment for committing such crimes. The Buddists and those belonging 
to other pagan creeds have undoubtedly committed as horrible deeds 
as the Confucionists when and wherever the opportunity was theirs 
to do so. This is another example, dear reader, of the noble thoughts 
and deeds this supposedly great, moral force, called religion, inspires 
people to. 

Now, dear reader, let us return to the one-God theorists. We 
bared the crimes committed by the Jews, as a religious body. Next 
in line for investigation are those religious organizations which call 
themselves Christians and Mohammedans. As already stated in this 
chapter, the first Christians suffered torture and death for over three 
.hundred years after Christ's death at the hands of the plural-God 

94 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

worshippers, because they differed with them in their religious belief. 
Through the assistance of King Constantine of France, who was, 
nominally at least, converted to the Christian faith, the Christians, 
then one united body, were from that time on, free from persecution. 
Almost immediately after freedom of conscience and worship had been 
granted to them, the leaders or priesthood of the early Christians began 
to persecute all those who did not believe exactly as the heads of the 
church demanded. They burdened their followers with new and 
superstitious doctrines, turned the humble priesthood into princes of 
the church, stepped from the side of the oppressed to the side of the 
oppressor, encouraged slavery, and used the sword to make con- 
verts and gain worldly riches. They forgot the teachings of the 
lowly Christ, who is said to have washed the feet of his apostles 
to give a lesson in humility, declared themselves above all man-made 
law, and proceeded to constitute themselves the direct representatives 
of God on earth and the only bona fide rulers of the world. 

From this time on, the sole and only object of the leaders or 
priesthood of the then Christian church was to gain worldly posses- 
sions and make every human being on earth obedient to their will and 
command. In order that they might be more successful in accom- 
plishing their purpose, they permitted only a very small body of men to 
receive an education and condemned the overwhelming majority of 
the people to absolute ignorance. Those of the uneducated, who 
rebelled against being kept in ignorance and slavery, and those of the 
educated who dared to teach the ignorant or proclaim a newly dis- 
covered truth were termed heretics, and torture, imprisonment, or 
death at the stake was the punishment meted out to them. Many 
good and learned men, who had great truths to impart, were murdered 
in the name of religion by these self-styled apostles of God, before 
they had an opportunity to make that truth known, and the world is 
poorer in knowledge on that account. 

Persecutions of different kinds on a smaller scale and in a milder 
form had been indulged in up to this time, but the number of those 
classed as heretics grew so rapidly that these God-ordained gentlemen 
decided that it was time to begin the extermination of heretics on a 
larger scale. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, which lasted fully 
six hundred years, was the result of that decision. When we take into 
consideration the number of victims and the fiendish cruelties com- 
mitted on the people during that period, we can truly stamp the 
Inquisition the masterpiece of the persecutions of mankind. 

It is impossible for me, dear reader, to give you in this work even 
a short account of what happened in Europe, especially in Spain, 
during that six hundred years, for a detailed account thereof would 
make a book four times as large as this one is to be. I shall recite 
just a few cases of persecution, as I find them recorded in Volume 
two, works by Henry Chas. Lea, entitled "The History of the Inquisi- 

95 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

tion of the Middle Ages." These will give you an idea of the crimes 
committed and the punishment inflicted. 

"In the year 1330, Jean Philibert, a priest was burned at the 
stake for sympathizing with a Christian sect called the Waldenses. 

"In 1849, Alphonse of Portugal was burned at the stake for saying 
that no true Popes existed since Gregory, the Great. 

"In 1393, at Genoble, France, Inquisitor Borel burned one hundred 
and fifty people in one day because they refused to live up to the 
teachings of the Pope. 

"One Giroloma Savonarola, a very learned and religious man, 
preached against the scandals and vices of the priesthood and Popes. 
Pope Alexander offered to make him a cardinal if he stopped preaching 
reform. This he refused to do, and, therefore, was burned at the stake 
in 1498 by the orders of the same Pope. 

"Early in the seventeenth century, Giorandino Bruno was burned 
at the stake for teaching that the earth is round and moves around the 
sun. 

"In Holland, under the reign of terror, which lasted from 1567 to 
1572, Duke Alva, who was sent there with an army to assist the in- 
quisitor, people were buried alive, buried up to the neck and left to 
die. At the Sack of Harlem and at Zeutphen, Holland, three hundred 
and five hundred people respectively were murdered within two days 
by tying them two and two together and drowning them in the lake. 
The sole crimes committed by any of these people was the refusal 
to believe exactly as the heads of the church wanted them to believe. 
Duke Alva boasted that he had killed eighteen thousand heretics. 

"As early as 385, one Priscilian, a reformer, and six of his disciples 
were tortured and killed at the behest of leaders of the then Christian 
church. The sole crime committed by these people was disagreeing 
with the heads of the church. 

"In 1212, in Strassburg, Germany, eighty so-called heretics were 
burned at the stake for the same reasons as given above. 

"In the fifteenth century, John Huss was burned in Bohemia for 
the same reason. 

"Early in the sixteenth century, Inquisitor La Palu in France 
built a fire at the mouth of a cave where about three thousand persons, 
including four hundred children, were hiding and killed every one of 
them by suffocation. These people were murdered because they be- 
longed to a Christian sect called the Waldenses. 

"In England, during the sixteenth century, such men as Hooper, 
Ridley Latimer and many others were burned for the very same 
reasons. 

"In Touloys, Spain, in the year 1385, a man and woman, the 
parents of eleven children, were burned at the stake because they were 
accused of practising Jewish rites. 

96 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

"In 1456, in Cologne, Germany, two women were burned as witches 
for causing such a frost in May that all vegetation was blasted. 

"In 1586, the Archbishop of Treves burned at Phalz, Germany, one 
hundred and eighteen women and two men for making cold weather 
in the Spring." 

These are only a few cases out of many. Read them very care- 
fully, and consider the reasons why these people were murdered, 
especially the last two mentioned. In their tireless endeavor to ex- 
terminate the heretics, as they termed everyone who did not fully 
agree with the doctrines of the church, or to force confessions of 
guilt from innocent people, these defenders of the faith, as they called 
themselves, invented and used the most cruel implements of torture 
and methods of killing ever conceived by anyone before or since. 

It is estimated that over two millions of innocent people were 
tortured and murdered, whose only crime was that of thinking for 
themselves, or of being suspected of doing so. Yes, dear reader, it is 
a positive fact that for at least ninety per cent, of the crimes com- 
mitted and the human blood spiHed through all ages, religion and its 
teachings are responsible. Every human being of normal intellect 
and over fifteen years of age should read the history of the Inquisition 
of the Middle Ages, as well as the history of all the other persecutions 
in the name of God and religion. Do this, dear reader, and permit no 
one to tell you that you must not read it. The reason you are for- 
bidden to read books of that kind is to keep you from learning what 
the record of that so-called great moral force, called religion, is. 
Only by knowing the past of an individual or organization can you 
know the true character of either of them. While the Inquisition was 
in full progress in Spain, heretics, dangerous to these unholy gentle- 
men, arose in large number in other parts of the world. In Germany 
the so-called arch heretic, Martin Luther, a full fledged priest of the 
then Christian church, protested against the selling of indulgences, 
and other evils perpetrated with the full sanction of the church. He 
left the priesthood and inaugurated a religious movement that 
encouraged the reading of the Bible, heretofore forbidden ; granted 
each human being the liberty to think for himself in religious matter ; 
and discarded many of the superstitious doctrines, usages and customs, 
preached and practised by the Orthodox church. 

Here then we have two religious bodies both accepting the doc- 
trine that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of man, and both claiming 
the name Christians. It now became necessary that each of these 
Christian factions adopt a name of its own. The newly organized and 
progressive movement, having come into existence through protesting 
against an established order of things, was called by both foe and 
friend the Protestant movement or church ; the older and reactionary 
movement, remaining true to its traditions with its headquarters in 
Rome, called itself henceforth the Roman Catholic church. The doc- 

97 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

trines of this new religious movement spread quickly all over Europe, 
and in different countries, other reformers, such as Calvin, Zwingly, 
Knox, Wesley and others brought into being still other Christian 
creeds or denominations. 

Now that we have reached this point, let us investigate the records 
of these different religious denominations calling themselves Chris- 
tians. As soon as the new or Protestant movement had been brought 
into being, the fight between the reactionary leaders and the so-called 
heretics became more bitter than ever. The religious wars in Ger- 
many, Austria, France, Holland and Switzerland were nothing else 
than attempts on the part of the leaders of the Roman Catholic church 
to destroy the new or Protestant movement, or, where, that was not 
possible, to check its growth. It is estimated that in these peasant 
wars up to June 21, 1525, not less than 45,000 had been slain, and before 
it had ended, that the number reached 100,000. The slaughtering of 
the Hugenots, a Protestant sect in France, after they had been assured 
by their persecutors that in future they would be permitted to live in 
peace, is one of the blackest spots in the record of the Roman Hier- 
archy. History tells us that this wholesale murder, which was com- 
mitted from August 24 to 25, 1572, was a carefully organized plot, 
planned months in advance. The church bells were rung to remind 
all those who were to take part in this wholesale slaughter of innocent 
and unsuspecting people that the time had come to begin their fiendish 
and cowardly work. It is estimated that thirty thousand people, 
belonging to the society of Hugenots were killed all over France, ten 
thousand in Paris alone. The common people who took part in this 
slaughter were naturally no worse than thousands of people who would 
not commit such deeds. The descendants of many of them, no doubt, 
hold to-day just as liberal and more liberal religious views than the 
Hugenots did then. The religious teaching and training they received 
filled them with hatred for their fellowmen and benumbed the intellect 
of these people so that they believed it to be their duty toward God 
to commit the crimes mentioned. This wholesale murder of innocent 
and unsuspecting people is known to history as the St. Bartholomew 
Massacre, and is but another example, dear reader, of the noble 
thoughts and deeds to which this supposedly great moral force, called 
religion, inspires the people under its influence. 

Does it not appear to you, dear reader, that a God, of whom it is 
said that he saved Daniel from the lions, and the three men from the 
fire, should have stopped, in this case, the ringing of the bells? My 
friends, do not only read these words, but think over the information 
they convey to you, and, furthermore, let no one tell you that you 
must not read them or think for yourself. The same Power that 
gave brains to the one who tells you that you must not think for your- 
selves, gave the brain to you, and the same kind of matter is in both 
his and yours. The burning at the stake of Joan of Arc, a very re- 

98 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

ligious girl of seventeen years, whose sole crime consisted in placing 
herself at the head of the French army and succeeding in repulsing 
the enemy of her country from the position they then held, marks 
the climax of a long period of individual or retail torturing and killing 
perpetrated by the Roman Hierarchy or priesthood. Although there 
is much more of the same nature to be said, we will content ourselves 
with the evidence so far gathered in relation to the record of that 
Christian faction calling itself Roman Catholic, and now turn our 
searchlight in the direction of those new or Protestant religious bodies. 
Here, dear reader, we are about to deal with men who protested 
against and denounced the tyrannical rules and superstitious doctrines 
employed by the leaders of the older or Roman Catholic church, and 
the cruel punishment inflicted by them on all those who dared to 
disagree with them. We are about to deal with men, each of whom 
called himself a reformer, a corrector, who organized a religious 
movement of his own, and proclaimed himself one of those chosen by 
God to bring about a new and better state of things in religious affairs. 
From such men we surely have a right to expect conduct of the very 
opposite kind than that which they themselves denounced. Let us 
see then whether their actions correspond with their professed opin- 
ions. 

We will begin with Martin Luther. Martin Luther, although 
himself of the peasant class, did not defend the poor peasants who 
were struggling for human rights, but denounced them for trying 
to gain those rights. History records that on one occasion when 
Luther heard that the peasants or common people had resorted to 
armed resistance against the government forces in their struggle 
for mental and economic freedom, he advised the government officials 
to shoot them down like they would a mad dog. History tells 
us that he was like a bulwark against armed resistance by the 
people. It must be remembered that in Luther's time Germany was 
still in the clutches of feudalism, and that most of the peasants or 
common people of Germany were serfs or half slaves. So you see, 
dear reader, that the people of that day were not only in need of 
liberty of conscience, but also of economic liberty. In such a just 
struggle, this self-styled reformer and man of the Lord did not see 
fit to assist or even sympathise with an oppressed and enslaved 
people. 

Luther surely did not act this way because he honestly thought 
that these people were wrong in fighting for human, rights. His 
actions can only be explained by considering the fact that he knew 
his own life and liberty was in danger, and that he needed the friend- 
ship of the nobles and slaveholders, who alone were able to protect 
him from his enemies. The only conclusion we can come to is that 
this supposed God-inspired man was willing that the liberties and even 
lives of thousands of people be sacrificed, as long as his own life and 

99 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

liberty were safeguarded Historians also tell us that Luther had a 
violent, dogmatic, and intolerant spirit, and that he bitterly hated 
Zwingly and Erasmus, two other reformers of his day. We are fur- 
ther told that Luther believed in witchcraft and in the doctrine of 
predestination, as expounded by Calvin. Here, dear reader, we see 
that the apparently exalted position Martin Luther, the reformer, 
occupied in his day, did not make him more human or any wiser than 
usual ; on the contrary, it seems that, instead, it made him more brutal 
than before. 

Of John Calvin, a Frenchman and another Roman Catholic priest, 
who, like Martin Luther, deserted the priesthood and became a re- 
former, a corrector of existing religious evils, history tells us that he 
exhibited an intolerant and despotic passion. Over the city of Geneva, 
he ruled for twenty years with an iron hand. We are told that Calvin 
excommunicated men for mocking at his sermons, and that he had 
spies watching the movements of the people, so that every unseemly 
word uttered in the street might come to his ears. By his orders, 
people were drowned for sensual sins. Under his despotic rule, witch- 
craft and heresy were capital crimes. Servitus, a great Spanish scien- 
tist, was burned at the stake by Calvin for differing from him on one 
single point. Here we see another supposedly God-inspired man, who 
denounced the tyrannical and superstitious rules and practices of the 
Roman Hierarchy and himself considered a heretic by the church he 
deserted, holding the same opinions and doing the very same things 
which he condemned in others. 

Calvin was also the originator of the doctrine of predestination, 
which teaches that before the human being sees the light of day, his 
soul has been destined by God to eternal happiness in heaven or 
eternal torture in hell. This doctrine has since been repudiated by 
the younger element of the Presbyterian or Calvanistic church. 

Zwingly, Knox, Fox, Wesley and several other reformers and or- 
ganizers of separate Christian sects or denominations have in all prob- 
ability no record of torturing and murdering other people because they 
were never powerful enough to do so. The new doctrines propagated 
by Luther, Zwingly, and Calvin soon found fertile soil in England, 
Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The advocates and adherents of these 
new or Protestant doctrines were persecuted by the Catholic Hier- 
archy with the assistance of the then Catholic king and government. 
It then came to pass that Henry VIII, then king of England, divorced 
his first wife against the wishes of the pope. The pope, considering 
himself in control of everything and everybody the world over, threat- 
ened King Henry with ex-communication. This caused the King to 
denounce the pope and to withdraw from the Catholic church. A 
number of priests and bishops deserted the Catholic church with him, 
new rules and doctrines were adopted, and the Episcopal church, or, 
in other words, another Protestant Christian faction was organized. 

100 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

Now, for a time, at least, one or more of the Protestant factions had 
full control in England. With those in control of affairs who had de- 
nounced the misdeeds of the Roman Hierarchy and deserted the move- 
ment over which they presided, we are again justified to expect that 
these same misdeeds would not be permitted. But dear reader, disap- 
pointment again stares us in the face. Not only were those who 
remained loyal to the pope and the Catholic church tortured and killed 
by those calling themselves Protestors or Protestants in the same 
manner and for the same reason that the Catholic Hierarchy or Priest- 
hood committed those misdeeds when and wherever in power, but the 
stronger of the Protestant factions waged war on the weaker ones for 
not believing exactly as they did. The same instruments of torture 
and methods of inflicting death were used by them as by their pre- 
decessors. Among those particularly mentioned are : The iron boot, 
in which the foot and part of the leg of the so-called heretic was 
mashed to a jelly by slowly driving wedges between the human flesh 
and the sides of the iron boot ; the metal helmet, a hat-shaped piece of 
metal which when heated to white heat, was placed on the head of 
the victim ; the stake, the rack, the thumbscrew, and other equally 
cruel devices were used by these Protestors or Protestants as freely 
as by the Roman Catholics. 

Through the influence of the dominant factions, laws were enacted 
making witchcraft and heresy punishable with death, and you may 
rest assured, dear reader, that many thounsands of human beings 
suffered torture and death for the crime of being considered a witch 
or heretic. Both of the above supposed crimes, especially the first 
mentioned, are known to-day to be nothing more than an imagination 
of a deluded brain. This, then, proves that those who were tortured 
and burned for these supposed crimes suffered innocently. With the 
ascension of Queen Mary, a loyal Roman Catholic, to the throne of 
England, the Roman priesthood again had the power of state on their 
side. They again became the torturers and butchers, and the Pro- 
testants the victims. Under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a loyal 
Protestant, the power of state once more became the defender of the 
dominant Protestant faction or creed. With this change of power, the 
persecutors and the victims again changed places. In other words, the 
Protestants became the butchers and the Catholics the victims. While 
the persecutors and victims changed places, the method of torturing 
and killing remained the same. 

Here we see that the spirit exhibited by those Christian factions 
or creeds, calling themselves Protestants, especially in the early period 
of their existence, was just as cruel and intolerable as that manifested 
by the Roman Catholics whom they had denounced. The torturing 
and murdering of innocent people in the name of God and religion 
lasted in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as in other parts of 
Europe to about the middle of the eighteenth century. 

101 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

Here, dear reader, we have again positive proof that religious 
teachings of any and all descriptions, the Reformed as well as the 
Orthodox or Conservative, are guilty of planting hatred, instead of 
love, within the human heart and mind, and that religion inspires 
those under its influence to the most fiendish acts imaginable. 
Do you still believe, dear reader, that religion is such a great moral 
force and that we could not get along without it. Some readers will 
perhaps say that the Protestant factions, calling themselves Christians, 
did not exhibit a spirit as cruel and intolerable as did the Roman 
Catholics from whom they separated, and that the reason for com- 
mitting the same or similar acts of cruelty was due to the situation 
they found themselves in, including the constant sight of their former 
persecutors. To show that this supposition is wrong, I will mention 
one more fact in relation to the subject under discussion. The Puri- 
tans, one of the weaker Protestant factions or sects, who had their 
origin in England, were so cruelly treated, that they decided to leave 
their native land and go to that newly discovered and then little 
populated part of the world, called North America. 

In this new world, neither the Catholic, Protestant, nor any other 
religious persecutors had taken a foothold or even made their appear- 
ance. Here everybody was at liberty to worship the God of his own 
imagination in any way he saw fit, as long as he did not infringe on 
the rights of others. Here, dear reader, these Protestant Christians, 
who fled from the persecutions they were subjected to in their native 
land, had a good chance to demonstrate that the religious teachings, 
as preached by at least some creeds, inspires people with and to 
good thoughts and deeds, and is, therefore, a blessing, and not a curse 
of the human race. But they utterly failed in that respect as we shall 
see. History tells us that just as soon as they had gained a foothold 
in this new land, where no one interfered with their religious beliefs 
and ceremonies, they adopted cruel and intolerant rules and inflicted 
torture and death as a punishment for disobeying these rules. Later, 
gaining control of the legislature, these Puritans, these one-time 
victims of and strong protestors against cruel and intolerant laws, 
placed laws on the Statute books, prescribing corporal punishment in 
public and even death for the women who sinned, and the death pen- 
alty for those who denied the divinity of Christ, and for incorrigible 
children. Witchcraft was declared a crime punishable by death, and 
many other equally inhumane laws and deeds were enacted and per- 
petrated by them. Thousands of innocent people suffered torture and 
death at their hands. Now, my religious friends, especially those of 
you who believe that religion is a necessity, without which we could 
not get along, you will surely admit that these professed Christians of 
the reformed type had no reason or inducement whatever for passing 
such inhumane laws and inflicting such cruel punishment, except for 
a desire on their part to see others suffer. 

102 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

In other words, these reformed Christians, who called themselves 
Puritans, which is supposed to stand for purity in religious doctrines 
and practises, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the old and pres- 
ent day religious doctrines, even under the most favorable conditions, 
serve no other purpose than to arouse and inflame the most fiendish 
and brutish nature within man. This in turn proves that religion is 
a curse to the human race. 

The Mohammedans, also believers in that supposedly one and 
only God, have a record as bloody as the Christian and Pagan 
creeds. While it is true that Mohammed, the founder of the Mo- 
hammedan religion, and some of his followers suffered persecution 
in the beginning of his career as a reformer, it is equally true 
that when he died, he left a bloody record behind. Thousands 
had suffered torture or death at his hands or at his command. 
Since that time, the number of victims has increased at least a hun- 
dred fold. The many holy wars waged by Mohammedans under the 
auspices of the Turkish government are positively nothing else than 
wholesale murder in the name of God and religion. With the Moham- 
medans, as with those of any other creed, it is not natural evil-minded- 
ness of the people that makes them commit these cruelties on their 
fellow-men, but the religious teachings they receive. Here, as in all 
such cases, religion and religion only is the responsible factor. 

The evidence produced here in reference to the conduct of the dif- 
ferent religious creeds or sects as religious bodies, and of their leaders, 
as supposedly God-ordained individuals, is only a very small portion of 
that available. Now, friends, what picture do the facts already pro- 
duced place before us? When we permit the evidence to pass before 
our intellectual eyes, we see the believers in plural-Gods, the pioneers, 
so to speak, in the religious arena, not only torturing and killing hun- 
dreds of thousands of human beings who differed from them in 
their religious belief, but also sacrificing members of their own 
race, creed, and family, including their own innocent babies, by 
the hundreds in one single day to please or appease one or more of their 
imaginary Gods. The reason for this was no other than that the 
religion taught them dulled their intellect, deadened their human and 
aroused their brutish nature. To say that these people believed in 
and worshipped false Gods is no argument in favor of religion. For 
if there is in existence an individual, supreme Being, who is the all- 
pcwerful and all-wise creator of mankind, then he surely is the guilty 
one, for not inspiring those honest, but deluded creatures of his to 
better deeds. 

In our picture, we next see the Jews, the first one-God worship- 
pers, enslave, torture, and murder by the thousands men, women, and 
children who did not agree with them in religious opinions, believing 
that these acts were pleasing to their God and imagining, when suc- 
cessful in their bloody work, that this one and only God had assisted 
them. Here, dear reader, we see the very first believers in that sup- 

103 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

posedly one and only true God filled with the same kind of thoughts 
and inspired to the same inhumane deeds that the religion of the so- 
called false Gods inspired their adherents to. It is true that the Jews 
believed in the doctrine of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, 
and that they considered only those who were circumcized and be- 
longed to their particular creed (their neighbors.) But this fact is 
again no excuse, if it is true that a God as described to us is in exist- 
ence, and that religion is the will of this God put into practise. 

The orthodox, as well as the reformed, Christians worship the 
supposedly one and only true God, and claim that they consider every 
human being, irrespective of religious or racial affiliations, their 
brother in Christ. Notwithstanding this, we see in the picture before 
us that the professed believers in the one and only true God and the 
universal brotherhood of man have enslaved, tortured, or murdered 
all who dared to disagree with them religiously when and wherever 
they were able to do so. We see the Mohammedans, the professedly 
strongest believers in the one and only true God, acting no different 
than their brethren of other religious creeds. Torturing and murder- 
ing in the name of God and religion are here as there the order of the 
day. This, then, is the picture which the evidence so far produced 
presents to us. 

The mental eye of the twentieth century can only see one large 
blot of blood, and I believe the evidence bears us out when we assert 
that the only reason why some religious creeds have not as large a 
record of such infamous and inhumane deeds as others is because they 
did not have the power and opportunity to make it so. So far we 
have learned that all religious systems, creeds, or sects, the world 
over, with the possible exception of the Unitarians, exhibited the same 
intolerant spirit and committed the same cowardly and inhumane 
deeds when and wherever possible. But not wishing to be considered 
in the least unfair and it being a fact that the tree is known by its 
fruit, let us see what effect these religious teachings and practises had 
on the world in general up to the present day. 

It is a well known and indisputable fact that in every country the 
world over, where the religious leaders of any creed or sect gained any 
controlling influence, especially where the doctrines of the older creeds 
were declared the national religion, or, in other words, where the 
church and state were united, the moral and intellectual progress of 
its people has been stagnated. The reason for this state of affairs is 
that the religious leaders of all, but especially those of the orthodox 
creeds, were in the past and are to this day against liberty of thought, 
speech, and the press, or in other words, against advocating or putting 
into practise any idea not in accord with their superstitious teaching, 
no matter how true, or of how much benefit it would be to the human 
race. The greatest crime that a so-called heretic could commit, for 
which the most cruel punishment was meted out, was the teaching of 

104 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

new and advanced ideas, or, in other words, enlightening the masses 
or common people. 

In every country, the world over, men and women suffered tor- 
ture and death for daring to advocate new and progressive ideas, or 
denouncing old or orthodox ones. In countries where religion is in 
control, people suffer for the same reasons to this very day. Fran- 
cisco Ferrerer, the great Spanish scholar who used his own money to 
establish schools wherein at least some of his countrymen could 
receive an education, was shot to death, October 13, 1909, supposedly 
for being an anarchist, but in reality, for educating his countrymen 
and advocating a nation-wide system of education. The fact that he 
was murdered was established two years after his death by the highest 
court in Spain which declared him innocent on every count and order- 
ed his property, which had been confiscated, returned to his children. 
Remember, dear reader, this happened in the twentieth century. The 
deplorable industrial, moral, and mental conditions of the countries 
and the people, where any religious creed has been largely or wholly 
in control of the affairs of state, are conclusive proof that religion is 
far from being a moral force or agency for good and a blessing to 
mankind. Such countries as China, Japan, India, Turkey, Russia, 
Spain, Mexico, the Philippine Islands, and several smaller countries 
are a fair example of the kind of blessing religion is. To whatever 
extent any religious creed dominated over the affairs of state at any 
time in any country on the globe, to that extent the industrial condi- 
tions of such a country suffered, and the intellectual and moral stand- 
ard of the people in such countries is far from what they should be. 
On the other hand, to whatever extent any country and its people 
were freed from religious control, to that extent the industrial, intel- 
lectual and moral conditions of that country and its people have im- 
proved. In India, China, Japan, and elsewhere where the Buddhist 
religion teaches that it is a sin to destroy animal life, thousands of 
children have sore eyes and actually become blind through the poison- 
ous stings caused by insects, just because the mothers and fathers 
believe that it is a sin to kill or even injure these carriers of disease. 
Sanitary measures in other respects are also very much neglected for 
the same or similar reasons. In these same countries, especially China 
and Japan, where Confucinism teaches that the earth is the eternal 
abode of departed souls or spirits, up to only a few years ago even 
the government officials protested against the laying of railroad tracks 
and the introduction of other modern improvements, which, in their 
opinion, would shake or disturb the ground and thereby displease and 
enrage the spirits who inhabit it. Many millions of the ignorant and 
deluded inhabitants of these countries believe to this day what the 
highly intelligent leaders of their race believed up to a few years ago. 
This was proven on several occasions, when numbers of them had to 
be restrained by force from doing bodily harm to men engaged in 

105 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

installing such improvements. The very low moral and intellectual 
standard of the bulk of the people in these countries are also traceable 
to the influence of religion. 

In Turkey Proper and in adjoining countries where the Moham- 
medan religion teaches that woman has no rights of her own and that 
she is only a toy for man, women are enslaved, deprived of an educa- 
tion of any kind, and dare not even show their facial beauty, all be- 
cause their religion teaches them that it is the will of Allah, their 
God. In Turkey, as in China, Japan, and other religion-ruled coun- 
tries, the industrial conditions of the country and the moral and intel- 
lectual standard of its people are of the lowest, and modern improve- 
ments to this day are an unknown quantity. The Mohammedans may 
be classed among the most bigoted and superstitious people on the 
globe, for to this day they believe that to kill an unbeliever or, in other 
words, a non-Mohammedan, or to fall in battle against them is equal to 
receiving a blessing from God and assures them of a higher seat in 
heaven. 

The Mohammedans, like many other religiously deluded people, 
are against all sanitary rules and regulations to improve or maintain 
their health. Believing that their God Allah will attend to everything 
necessary in that respect, they consider such rules and regulations 
issued by mere man an interference with the will and plans of God, or, 
in other words, a sin. Here we have still another example, dear read- 
er, of the blessing this supposedly great moral force, called religion, 
is to mankind. In Australia and Africa, large tribes of ignorant and 
superstitious negroes, as well as Indians, and other savage races, in dif- 
ferent parts of the world to this very day, bring human sacrifices to 
drive out devils, heal the sick, have their sins forgiven, and so forth. 
The government officials of these countries have their hands full pre- 
venting these deluded people from performing their barbaric religious 
rites. Judge religion, like the tree, by its fruit and draw your own 
conclusions. 

Now, dear reader, especially those of you who call yourselves 
Christians, let us inquire what results religious teachings have pro- 
duced in the past and to this day on those countries and its people, 
whose so-called spiritual and temporal affairs were guided and domi- 
nated over for many centuries by the leaders and doctrines of the 
orthodox faction of those calling themselves Christians. 

Before proceeding, I shall state why I did not mention the Rus- 
sian and Greek Catholic creeds or churches as separate or Protestant 
bodies. While it is true that both of these churches came into being 
by protesting against some rules or doctrines of the parent or what is 
to-day known as the Roman Catholic church and exist as separate 
religious bodies, their doctrines, ceremonies, and style of organization 
are so much like those of the Roman Catholic creed or church, that 
the difference, if any, is difficult to discover. Although they do not 

106 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

openly recognize the pope of Rome as the head of their church, and 
although they permit their clergy to marry, which is contrary to the 
rules of the Roman Catholic church, the members of the prieshood of 
both of these non-Roman creeds are on such intimate terms with those 
of the Roman Catholic church, that their separation seems to be only 
a nominal one. I know of cases right here in the United States, where 
priests of the Russian and Greek churches blessed their flags, read 
mass in their churches, and attended in full priestly regalia other 
church functions of theirs. Furthermore, neither the Russian nor the 
Greek Catholics have ever called themselves or permitted others to call 
them Protestants. The apparent identity of these religious bodies, 
who call themselves Catholic, having been established, let us treat 
them as one body, calling it the Orthodox Christian Faction. 

We will deal separately with the different countries and people 
over whose destinies they ruled for centuries, and begin with Russia. 
Anyone who reads nothing more than the daily papers must know that 
Russia is not only thoroughly saturated with religious doctrines of 
the most orthodox kind, as far as the overwhelming majority of the 
people are concerned, but that every movement of the government 
officials, including the Emperor, have been in the past and are to this 
day strongly influenced by the teachings and leaders or priesthood of 
the Russian Orthodox church. At this very time, the report is spread 
broadcast that both the Emperor and the Empress are under the abso- 
lute control of a certain priest of that church. The common people or 
peasant class of Russia are known to be such firm believers and are so 
attached to their church that the members of the priesthood, who are 
almost worshipped by these ignorant people, can very easily induce 
them to do anything they like, good or evil. As a general rule, these 
deluded people obey the orders of their priest to the letter. Notwith- 
standing this, most, if not all, of us know that the majority of those 
very people are classed among the most intemperate, illiterate, bigoted 
and generally uncivilized people of all so-called civilized nations the 
world over, and that the Russian government is classed as one of, 
if not the most corrupt, inhumane, and generally uncivilized system of 
government of all so-called civilized governments. Every school 
child knows of the fiendish cruelties inflicted by the Russian govern- 
ment on an oppressed people. The fact that, after many centuries of 
absolute religious control of the most orthodox kind, from seventy- 
five to ninety per cent, of the people of a nation are illiterate, unable 
to read and write, and of a very low standard morally, and that a 
government, also for centuries under that same supposedly holy 
influence, has the most horrible record for brutality, and denies to 
this very day freedom of conscience and speech to its own people, 
surely proves that religion, in this case as in others, has not been an 
agency for good, but instead a curse to the people under its influence. 
Yes, dear reader, this same Russian government which has been in 

107 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

the past and is to this day saturated with religious influence not only 
refuses to give the common people a common school education, but 
makes it a crime for any organization or individual to even attempt 
to educate the people. Again I ask, dear reader, do you still believe 
that religion is an agency for good? 

The occurrence on the day known as bloody Sunday, when 
thousands of men, women and children, who had assembled in the 
streets intending to ask the Little Father, as they call the Emperor, for 
a morsel of liberty, were shot down and trampled upon by horses, 
the massacres of the Jews, the torturing and killing of thousands of 
people for daring to think for themselves, or being suspected of doing 
so, all speak well for that supposedly great moral force, called religion. 
These innocent and unsuspecting people, who died on that memorable 
bloody Sunday, were led to their slaughter by a priest, a supposed 
friend of theirs, but in reality a Judas Iscariot. A tree is known by 
the fruit it bears. So is any teaching or correctional institution known 
by the results it produces. Consider the results that I have so far 
pointed out to you, dear reader, and then form your own conclusion. 

In Italy, a country also for centuries under orthodox religious rule 
and influence, a very large percentage of the people are absolutely 
illiterate, in poor economical circumstances, and, consequently, of a 
low intellectual and moral standard. All improvements made in that 
country in late years, were done against the wishes and in spite of 
the protests of the advocates of that particular religion, still largely 
in control there. 

Spain is another nation for centuries absolutely and to the present 
day very largely under the control and influence of the teachings 
of that oldest and most orthodox Christian creed, the Roman 
Catholic church. From sixty-five to seventy-five per cent, of the 
population are illiterate, impoverished, and, of low intellectual 
and moral standard. Schools for the common people are an unknown 
quantity in Spain, and to teach real knowledge is a crime. The en- 
actment of a law to give freedom of conscience to everybody is at this 
late day bitterly fought by the highest representatives of that par- 
ticular religion in control there. The old-style religions can only 
prosper where ignorance prevails. A nation and a people once firstjn 
national power, is today a poor third rater in power, and financially 
and intellectually ruined. And all this, after that supposedly great 
moral force or agency for good, called religion, has had full sway 
for more than twelve centuries, and, after over a million people 
had been tortured and slaughtered in the name of God and religion 
by so-called holy and God-ordained men, for the purpose, as they 
claim, to make the world better. Again, dear reader, we have in- 
disputable proof that religion is not a blessing to the human race, but 
a curse. 

108 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

Portugal, Servia, Roumania, and several other small nations,, 
including the Philippine Islands, Cuba, and several South American 
Republics, which were for many centuries, and are still largely under 
the same religious control as Spain, received the same blessing. The 
industrial conditions of these countries and the intellectual and moral 
standard of seventy-five per cent, of the people therein are no better 
than those of the larger countries named. A report made by United 
States officials on the conditions in the Philippine Islands, and known 
as document one hundred and ninety, states that two-thirds of the 
children born in that country are of illegitimate parenthood, and, 
furthermore, that many of the religious leaders, who are called Holy 
Fathers by their deluded followers, and who are supposed to be un- 
married, and know nothing of the pleasures of fatherhood, are in 
reality fathers of many of the children born out of wedlock. Slavery 
flourished in the Philippine Islands while under the full control of this 
supposedly great moral force, called religion. A very small percentage 
of its people have at this late day what may be termed a fair education, 
and a very large portion are intellectually and morally not much 
better than savages. This, dear reader, is the result of the teachings 
and other activities of that supposed-to-be all-important thing, called 
religion. Mexico is another country for centuries under the absolute 
control and influence of the teachings and leadership of that so-called 
holy Roman Catholic church. The results of their activities are here 
the same as in other countries mentioned. The industrial conditions of 
that priest-ridden country and the economic, mental, and moral condi- 
tions of its unfortunate people, are according to reliable reports, little, if 
any, better than those in the Philippine Islands. The percentage of 
illiteracy among the Mexican natives, and that of children born out 
of wedlock are reported to be as high as in any country on the globe. 
Anyone who is at all acquainted with the political history of Mexico, 
or who has come in personal contact with its people, can easily form 
an opinion of their fitness for self-government. The anarchistic state 
of affairs prevalent in Mexico this very day speaks for itself. 

Again, my religious friends, we have overwhelming proof that 
religion is not the great moral force or agency for good that we are 
asked to believe it is. Belgium is a country situated in the midst of 
and is itself recognized as a fairly civilized nation. It has also for 
centuries been absolutely and is to this day largely under the control 
and influence of the teachings and leaders of that very orthodox 
Christian creed, called the Roman Catholic church. Here we find, 
as in other religiously controlled countries, that schools are few in 
number, the education dispensed therein far from the best in quantity 
and quality, that the industrial conditions of the country and the men- 
tal and moral standard of a large percentage of its people are very far 
from being good. We also find that very unjust system of plural vot- 
ing still in existence. For the benefit of those who may not know, I 

109 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

will say that plural voting means that the very poor have no vote at all, 
and the rest of the men have from one to four votes, according to 
their wealth or social standing. The prelates of the church are among 
those who have four votes. This out-of-date and unjust system of 
voting is defended in aud out of Parliament by the representatives of 
the Catholic political party and the priesthood. Only very recently 
the Catholic party in Belgium, which has a majority in Parliament, 
passed a law making the flimsiest reason sufficient to excuse parents 
from sending their children to school. This shows, dear reader, how 
much these directors of that supposed agency for good care whether 
their own followers receive an education or not. In fact, it proves that 
they do not want the people to receive an education worth having. 
The less people know, the easier it is for these supposedly holy men 
to keep these poor, unfortunate creatures in their clutches, and out of 
freedom's light. In England, a country for over three centuries under 
orthodox Protestant rule and influence, the educational facilities for 
the common people were, until recent years, few and poor. Those 
professing the Roman Catholic faith, especially in Ireland, were ham- 
pered greatly in their intellectual and moral development, and the 
economic conditions under which these people were forced to live 
may truly be called near-slavery. According to a New York news- 
paper of recent date, women are in England to this day not permitted 
to enter certain colleges. In many other respects women are treated 
in a degrading manner. The unjust plural voting system is also 
still in existence in this Protestant ruled country, called England. 
Thus we see that in every country on the globe, the industrial, intel- 
lectual, and moral developments of the country and its people have at 
some time in their history been more or less obstructed through relig- 
ious influences of one kind or another, and in the most advanced 
nations in existence to-day, and apparently free from all religious 
control, some traces of that unholy influence can still be detected. 

At this stage of our discussion, no doubt, many readers will say, 
"It is true that all the inhumane deeds you mentioned and many more 
were committed by religious leaders and their followers in the name 
of religion, and it is also true that the after effects you mention are 
apparently traceable to religious influence, but religion in itself is 
not responsible for either the apparent cause or effect." Here, dear 
reader, I must remind you again of that true biblical saying: "By 
their fruits ye shall know them." This is equivalent to saying that a 
cultivated tree will bear cultivated fruit, and a wild tree will bear 
wild fruit; or that an organization or system of any kind, which is 
based on good and sound principle and managed by honest and intelli- 
gent men or women will always be a producer of good results, while, 
on the other hand, an organization or system based on false principle, 
especially when directed by dishonest individuals, will always be a 
producer of evil results. To make myself still clearer on this point, I 
shall use the following illustration : If, for instance, the students of 

110 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

a trade or professional school, after attending said institution for 
several years, knew no more of the trade or profession they intended 
learning than when they began their studies, or if the inmates of a re- 
form school would become more degenerate, instead of less so, we 
would be justified in saying that such institutions are not only not 
beneficial or a blessing to the world at large and to those who come in 
contact therewith, but that, on the contrary, they are a detriment to 
all concerned. On the other hand, we would be equally justified in 
saying that a trade, professional, or reform school, which really in- 
structs or reforms, is* an agency for good and a blessing to its pupils or 
inmates and the world at large. In each case, the worth or unworthi- 
ness of the institution in question is determined by the good or evil 
results produced, in other words, by their fruits. 

This point being clear, dear reader, I would like to ask you these 
questions: If the good or evil influence exerted by educational and 
correctional institutions is measured by the good or evil results their 
methods and activities produce, why should not the same rule apply 
when so-called religious institutions are in question? Then, again, 
if we admit, which I believe every fairminded person will, that it is 
only just to treat all institutions alike in that respect, how can even 
the strongest apologist of religion in the face of all the damaging evi- 
dence against the same, contend that religion is a great moral force 
or agency for good? In my opinion, such a person must either be 
ignorant of what happened in the past and unconscious of what goes 
on about him this very day, or very dishonest. What is your opinion, 
dear reader? 

The evidence so far produced should be sufficient to prove to 
anyone of normal intellect and honest enough to be convinced, that 
religion is not the great moral force or agency for good that we are 
told it is ; however, I shall produce more evidence of a later date and 
perhaps even more convincing. It is a positive fact and acknowledged 
as such by doctors, police, prison, and insane asylum officials, and 
many others who have an opportunity to become acquainted with that 
fact, that most cases of insanity are traceable to religion of one kind 
or another, and that the overwhelming majority of crimes, including 
the most fiendish, are committed by men and women who believe in 
and live up to the doctrines of some religious creed, yes, in many 
cases, by the religious leaders themselves or those holding trustworthy 
and honorable positions in church circles. Let us mention just a few 
of very many such cases on record. According to newspaper reports, 
in the city of Chicago, a devoted Christian woman, a mother of several 
daughters, was found to be financially interested in one or more 
houses of ill-fame. Her part of the profits derived therefrom, she 
used to give her own daughters a good education. In other words, a 
professed religious woman coined the honor of other women's daugh- 
ters into dollars and cents, in order that her own daughters might be 

111 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

saved from such a fate. Again, dear reader, we have a sample of the 
kind of influence religion exerts over those who are led by its guiding 
hand. A Protestant minister in California committed murder in the 
basement of the church, and then permitted an innocent man to die 
on the gallows for the crime he had committed. This minister, ac- 
cording to newspaper reports, confessed the crime before he died. 
Another Protestant minister, Mr. Richardson of Massachusetts, after 
wronging a young girl who had trusted him, deliberately mixed and 
prepared the poison which was intended to and did cause her death. 
This self-styled representative of God did this to enable him to 
marry another girl, who possessed more of the good things of this 
world than the one he had wronged. Still another in New York City 
committed perjury in a matter where the life of a human being was at 
stake. A Protestant deacon confessed in a congregational bribing 
case that he, a leading church member and supposedly good man, 
assisted in the noble work of bribing Legislators for corrupt pur- 
poses. Father Schmidt, a Roman Catholic priest in New York City, 
after wronging a girl who trusted him, killed her, cut her body into 
pieces, and threw them in the river to hide his crime. According to 
newspaper reports, counterfeiting and stealing were part of his stock 
in trade. According to a Western weekly, another Roman Catholic 
priest in Brooklyn, after wronging a young girl, a member of his 
parish, regularly twice a week for a period of two years, unknown to 
the girl's parents, deserted her in disgrace, and left for another field 
of operation. Another of the same tribe confessed in Pittsburg to 
ruining a young girl, who had been in his employ as a servant. He 
was sentenced to pay a fine of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars. Still 
another, three times accused by bloodhounds of murdering a girl in 
the same house in which he slept, was arrested, but through influence 
freed the very next day, and permitted to go wherever he liked. In 
Germany, only very recently, a Catholic priest was sentenced to five 
years in state prison for contributing to the delinquency of little boys 
and girls. A priest of the Russian Orthodox church robbed the statue 
of the Holy Virgin so-called of many diamonds, and then killed his 
own brother, the only one, outside of himself, who knew of the dia- 
mond robbery. Thousands of other such cases could be mentioned. 
Dear reader, the so-called representatives of God and leaders of 
the Roman Catholic and Protestant creeds or churches are not the 
only ones guilty of every crime on the calendar. I feel certain 
that an investigation would reveal the fact that clergymen and 
leading members of other religious creeds are no better than those 
of the two creeds mentioned herein. As to the morality of religious 
leaders and so-called holy men, I could tell of many cases that have 
come under my personal observations, as well as such where the best 
of proof was furnished to me by others. Your hair would stand on 
end, if you knew of the moral depravity of some of the supposed-to-be 

112 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

inspired representatives of God, including some of the most highly 
honored individuals. I know of cases, dear reader, of which the details 
are unprintable. How often do we read in newspapers an account of 

some fiendish crime committed, and it adds that Mr. or Mrs. , the 

perpertrators of the crime, is known as a very religious man or woman ; 
that he or she is a Sunday School teacher, a deacon, a trustee of a 
church, or some other highly respected personality in the church or 
religious societies. But remember, friends, I do not say that all 
preachers or all those* who take part in church work are criminals or 
morally depraved, for I know positively that all creeds and sects have 
many good and conscientious preachers and laymen among them. 

Now, dear reader, let us see what effect the studying of the so- 
called holy Scripture of all creeds, and the fanatic preaching of relig- 
ion, so-called revivals or missions, and religion as a whole, has on 
many members of the human race, young and old. I have before me 
newspaper accounts of a father of a number of children, who after lis- 
tening to a revivalist and earnestly thinking over the teachings ex- 
pounded, went out of his mind, cut off one of his hands, and attempted 
to cut out one of his eyes ; another of a girl, after attending a mission 
and thinking over religious problems, went insane and had almost suc- 
ceeded in chopping her left hand off, when she fainted from the loss of 
blood ; one of a man and of a woman going insane over religion and 
killing an entire family ; of a certain religious sect in the United States 
torturing a child to death with the consent of the parents in an endeavor 
to drive out the devil ; still another of a religious sect in Holland whose 
leaders and followers believe that on a certain day in the year it is 
necessary to bring human sacrifices to please the God they believe 
in. A number of young men and women volunteered on this occasion 
as victims and were killed by the minister amidst the singing of relig- 
ious songs. I personally know of a Chritian mother in the United 
State, who would not permit her daughter, who is very cross-eyed, to 
be operated on in an endeavor to straighten her eyes, because she 
believed that it was God's will that they should remain that way. So 
we could go on indefinitely, reciting cases of similar kinds. To save 
space, I have not given the exact dates and places of the incidents I 
mentioned, but will gladly furnish them to any honest inquirer on 
request. 

We have so far produced a large amount of evidence in this chap- 
ter that religion is not that great moral force and agency for good that 
we are asked to believe it is, but I shall converse with you, so to 
speak, a little longer and point out to you a few other, and perhaps 
still more convincing facts which touch our everyday life. In this 
last inquiry for evidence on this subject, we shall deal, as we have 
largely done in previous chapters, with the one-God theorists and the- 
ories, especially the Christians. According to the so-called Scriptures 
of all the one-God theorists, the Jews have preached the teachings of 

113 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

the one and only God for four thousand years or over, the Christians 
for nearly two thousand years, and the Mohammedans for about one 
thousand five hundred years. The teachings of the three religious 
systems or creeds, especially that of the Christians^ are considered by 
most thinking people more productive of good and noble thoughts, 
and human brotherly feeling within the mind and heart of man, than 
those of the plural-God theorists. The fundamental principles of the 
Christian religion, as laid down by its founder, is, or at least should be, 
the universal brotherhood of mankind. This principle was laid down 
to them in these words : "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In fact, 
every other religious creed of any consequence claims this noble doc- 
trine as the principal part of its religion. 

' Now, friends, let us take the Christians, the supposedly strongest 
advocates of brotherly love, as an example, and see whether their 
actions in everyday life corresponds with their declaration of princi- 
ple. In other words, let us see whether this supposed-to-be greatest 
of all cultivators of and inspirer to noble and humane thoughts and 
deeds, the Christian religion, proves itself in this instance worthy of 
that title. If you, dear reader, have not had the experience, go to any 
city in the world among the ignorant people who honestly believe 
everything the church teaches, who would give their very life for their 
religion and their leaders or clergy, who never read forbidden books 
or papers or listen to utterances calculated to destroy one's religious 
belief, and you will rind much immorality, much drunkenness, much 
brutal treatment, even of their own children, and much quarreling and 
fighting for the least provoking reasons. The celebrating of weddings, 
christenings, and the highest church holidays seldom end without a 
fight. Many such fights have very serious results. In the morning, 
they go to church, and in the afternoon and evening many, if newt most 
of them, get intoxicated, and then act the beast to perfection. Al- 
though many of such cases are aired in police courts, many of their 
so-called spiritual leaders have their hands full attending to cases of 
immorality, drunkenness, et cetera, brought before them for decision. 
These people, no matter of what race or nationality or what religion 
they profess, are to be pitied, for it is ignorance, and the teaching they 
received, which makes them behave as they do. The advocates of 
religion of one kind or another have been for centuries and are to 
this day their instructors and guardians, and are unquestionably re- 
sponsible for their mental condition, and, consequently, their moral 
conduct. I have before me a newspaper clipping which informs us 
that in the year 1913 in Dublin, Ireland, during a ball game between 
a Catholic and a Protestant team, six persons were killed and many 
seriously wounded. All this happened because someone in the crowd 
waved an Irish and another a British flag. The two flags in this case 
signified religious differences only. This is still another example, 
dear reader, of the good that religion inspires people to. Had the 

114 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

people assembled there been, what is termed, unbelievers, the waving 
of a thousand of each of the above mentioned flags would not have 
caused the least injury to a single individual. But then, we must 
admit, it is different with religiously inspired people. 

Next, dear reader, observe the unmerciful exploitation of children 
in factories and sweat-shops. Many of those who profit thereby are 
leading members of the church and its main financial supporters. Ob- 
serve the jealousy, hatred, and general ill-will exhibited and the mean 
tricks often played on each other in everyday life by men and women 
who are thoroughly religious and profess to believe in the brotherhood 
of man, or in loving your neighbor as yourself. This is the case with 
men and women in all walks of life from the poorest paid working 
man or woman to the many times millionaire business man. Many 
people in all stations of life, who are outwardly the best of friends, 
forget all their professed friendship as soon as their own or the other 
person's back is turned. Judges on the bench, members of parliament, 
and other public officials, who profess to be religious, give decisions 
and vote or act on matters of interest to the people who placed them 
in the positions they occupy, not according to the dictates of their 
conscience, but for material gain of some kind. Officials of prisons 
and corrective institutions, religious and otherwise, maltreat the un- 
fortunates who are placed in their care in more instances than most 
people are aware of. I do not ask you to take my word for it, but 
I assure you that if you investigate, you will discover that eight out of 
every ten of those in all walks of life who feel and act most hypocrit- 
ically and inhumanely toward their fellow-men and women are the 
ones who profess to be members of some religious creed, go to church 
regularly, and give liberally from their honest or ill-gotten gains to 
its support. Anyone who is not so blind and so deaf that he does not 
want to see or hear cannot help but know, that the descriptions given 
here of existing conditions are not overdrawn, but underrated. 

If you carry your investigation a little further, you will find that 
not only in the past, but to this very day, the bitterest enemies of 
progressive ideas are to be found among the leaders and strongly 
religious members of all creeds with the possible exception of the 
Unitarians. The really religious, both lay and clergical, have always 
been and are to this day against all progressive ideas, especially if 
they confer more rights on the people, and they would inflict the most 
brutal punishment on the advocates of progressive measures of any 
kind. For instance, very recently a Roman Catholic priest in Brook- 
lyn, N. Y., in speech and print declared that the members of a certain 
political party were a menace to the nation and should be exterminat- 
ed, if need be, with a bullet. A Protestant minister in New York City 
denounced the same people and said that he personally would gladly 
pull the rope to hang them. My Christian friends, are not both of 
these gentlemen of the cloth fine examples of Christians. These in- 

115 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

stances could be multiplied thousands of times, and they include 
preachers of all creeds. Many Jewish rabbis and clergymen of other 
than the Christian and Jewish creeds have expressed the very same 
sentiments only in different words. Among the laymen, the more 
religious they be the more bitter they are against the invasion of new 
and progressive ideas, and the more cruel the punishment they would 
like to inflict upon the advocates thereof. The less religious they are, 
the more tolerant and humane they become. Almost every day, I hear 
people whom I know to be earnest in their religious beliefs, who attend 
church regularly, and who live up to all church rules and regulations, 
express intolerant sentiments about new ideas or doctrines, such as 
the woman suffrage movement, the recall and referendum, socialism, 
etc., and recommend the most brutal punishment for the advocates of 
progressive measures. The fact of the matter is that, for every inch 
of progress that was ever made in any part of the world for centuries 
past and to this day, religion of some kind, its corrupt leaders, and 
often their fanatic followers had to be fought. The main purpose of 
religion of all descriptions has always been to keep those under its 
influence in ignorance. Ignorance is the natural parent of brutality. 
I leave it to you, dear reader, to figure out the rest. 

The mentioning of these seemingly insignificant facts may seem 
to many of little importance, and this would be true if it were not for 
the fact that religion is heralded as the inspirer of everything that is 
good, the humanizer and civilizer of mankind and a training school, 
without which we would still be savages. But the most staggering 
piece of evidence which proves that religion is not the great moral force 
or agency for good that most people think it is, we have not mentioned. 
It is what is known as the Eruopean War, anno 1914. Here, dear 
reader, we see up-to-date one so-called heathen and six Christian na- 
tions engaged in the fiercest and bloodiest conflict the world has ever 
seen. My reason for saying up-to-date is, that it is very probable that 
other nations will join, yes, that every nation in the world may become 
involved therein. Have you, dear reader, placed before your mental 
eyes as true a picture of that terrible, inhumane affair as is possible 
from the information we have received from the scenes of battle? If 
so, you will see from ten to twelve millions of religious and supposedly 
civilized human beings using the most deadly and up-to-date instru- 
ments in an effort to murder each other. While the heads of these 
nations may have a real or imaginary grievance, those who are actively 
engaged in this deadly conflict never as much as bent a hair on each 
other's head, or even saw each other before they met on the battle- 
field. Newspaper reports also tell us that as many as fifty thousand 
of these human beings or God's children are murdered in one single 
day, and military experts prophesy that if the war, as it now stands, 
lasts six months, that over a million people will have been killed, and 
twice that many wounded and perhaps crippled for life. Just think, 

116 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

dear reader, what these figures mean. Then picture to yourself the 
many fatherless and brotherless homes there will be when the war is 
over, and the endless sorrow and hardship that it will cause. Now, 
dear reader, rub your eyes, and pinch yourself to see if you are really 
awake. Then take a look at your calendar and see what year it is 
in which all this is happening. When you have verified that this is 
not happening in the stone age or even the middle ages, but in the 
twentieth century, in the era of enlightenment, and last, but not least, 
that it happens in a part of the world where Christianity, the sup- 
posedly greatest advocate of brotherly love, had full sway for one 
thousand five hundred years at least, ask yourself this question: 
What good has that supposedly highest type of religion done in the 
past fifteen centuries? How much has this religion, whose funda- 
mental principle is supposed to be the brotherhood of man, accom- 
plished in implanting within the human breast the desire for peace and 
good will toward his fellow-men? Just think of it, dear reader, 
especially those of you who really believe people would murder each 
other if it were not for religion, and that religion has performed in the 
past and to this day a great service to the human race. In this, the 
twentieth century, tens of millions of religious and supposedly civi- 
lized human beings can almost at a moment's notice and without any 
real cause be inflamed with such hatred toward other human beings 
that they attack each other like so many enraged animals. And all 
this my religious friends, is possible after the oldest forms of religion 
have been preached for perhaps a hundred thousand years, Judaism 
for four thousand, and Christianity for nearly two thousand years. 

If we judge the worthiness or unworthiness of a thing by the 
results it produces, we again must come to the conclusion that religion 
of every description is not only not an agency for good, but that, on 
the contrary, it is a wholesale producer of evil. Here many readers 
will say, "You are wrong again. Religion has no part whatever in 
this European War. It is the patriotic spirit of the people and nothing 
else which drives millions to war on each other." Those readers I 
will ask this question : "Do you believe that men or women who, 
through the efforts of some individual or institution, had really been 
convinced that it is not right for them to live the criminal life they 
had once lived, could be induced to return to that evil mode of life as 
easily as these millions of people were induced to wage war on each 
other? I can hear you all shout, "No, not if they are really convinced 
that their former mode of life was wrong, and really desire to do what 
is right." With this answer, dear reader, you seal religion's fate. 
For if it means anything, it means that if a certain doctrine has taken 
an effective hold on those it is preached to, the effects of such teaching 
must and will show itself. This in turn spells that, if religious teach- 
ing had one-half the good influence it is supposed to have, these people 
would have been so thoroughly convinced that wholesale murder, 

117 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

called war, is wrong, and imbued with enough brotherly feeling that 
war, even on the smallest scale, would have been impossible. No one 
apologist of religion, or all of them put together, can deny that the 
great slaughter of human beings now going on in Europe is positive 
proof that religion as such does not inspire people with brotherly 
feeling or noble thoughts of any kind. 

But there is still another point in this connection which deserves 
our attention, namely, the conduct of the clergy of all creeds during 
this and every other war or wholesale murder. We read almost every 
day in the daily press that in the countries which are involved in this 
present war, the clergy or self-styled representatives of a God or Gods 
hold special church service, and address prayers to the God they pro- 
fess to believe in, asking Him to lead the armies of their particular 
country to victory. In other words, they ask a supposed, righteous, 
loving God to give to the soldiers of their particular country the 
greater success in killing and wounding those who are fighting against 
them, or, in still other words, to assist them in committing wholesale 
murder. But this also does not explain the point fully. In the war 
now raging in Europe, there are seven nations involved who profess 
to believe in one and the same God. Here, then, we have the spectacle 
of clergymen of the same creeds in seven different nations, asking one 
and the same God to help them to commit the greatest number of 
murders. The same is true with every other war, only, perhaps, with 
fewer nations involved. Think over this, dear reader, it is well worth 
your while. Then think of the predicament in which this supposed 
God must be. For with all His might and wisdom, it is in this case 
impossible for Him to please all His representatives on earth ; He must 
disappoint some of them. But this is not all, dear reader. Anyone 
who reads the newspapers knows that whenever a person is convicted 
of murder and sentenced to die, a clergyman of the church he professes 
to belong to, is on hand to console and prepare him to meet his Maker 
so-called. The people condemned to die include some who are in- 
nocent of the crime they are charged with, and many who, while 
guilty, never intended to commit murder. To these people, the self- 
styled representatives of God on earth say that he who takes the life 
of another forfeits his own life, and on the day of execution, they lead 
the prisoner to the place where his life will be taken. In case of war 
or deliberate wholesale murder, many of these same clergymen of all 
creeds are actually present when wholesale murder is committed. Do 
they tell those who commit deliberate wholesale murder right before 
their eyes that he who takes life forfeits his own? No, dear reader, 
they do not. In this case, the self-styled representatives of God bless 
those who commit deliberate murder, and encourage them to commit 
many more of such noble and patriotic deeds. The retail murderer 
they lead to the gallows ; the wholesale murderer they bless and en- 
courage in his good work. The great contrast in their actions in this 

118 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

respect must surely convince every religious person that the clergy- 
men of all creeds are not very sincere when they tell their followers 
that it is a sin or a crime to take the life of another. Think over this, 
religious reader. 

A recent issue of one of the large and conservative New York 
newspapers contained a number of articles from the pens of editors 
of official Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant newspapers, each express- 
ing his view as to whether the present war in Europe does or does not 
prove Christianity, that supposedly greatest inculator of brotherly 
love, a failure. Each of these undoubtedly able men used a large 
amount of words, but not one of them came within a mile of saying 
what the heading of the article indicated they were going to say. The 
reason these learned editors of religious papers came no nearer to the 
point than they did is because it was impossible for them to do so 
without proving not only Christianity, but all religion, a positive fail- 
ure. When such men make even a pretense of discussing a question 
of this character in print, and a newspaper of that kind devotes a whole 
page thereto, it shows, dear reader, that the writer of these lines is not 
the only one who has his doubts about the humanizing influence 
religion as such is supposed to have. Do as others, dear reader, think 
over this and then form your own conclusion. 

Before abandoning our search for evidence in this direction, I 
shall mention just a few more facts which, while they bear only in- 
directly on the subject under discussion, they are, in my opinion, very 
interesting ones. Marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament, but 
how do the religious leaders and so-called representatives of God 
on earth honor this supposedly holy institution? All civilized people 
will admit that the only thing that really justifies marriage between 
two people is the existence of love between them for each other. In 
the first place, these self-styled representatives of God have a set 
price for dispensing that supposedly great blessing. The prices 
vary in different churches and countries, and even among differ- 
ent nationalities in one and the same country. In fact, I know 
positively that under the jurisdiction of at least one religious creed, 
most clergymen have three sets of prices for the performance of 
the marriage ceremony. The applicants for marriage are asked at 
what price they wish to be joined in wedlock, just as any busi- 
ness man would ask you what price eggs, potatoes, or suit of 
clothes you wanted. Yes, some of these supposedly holy men have 
still other ways of turning that supposedly holy sacrament, called 
matrimony, into money. For instance, to be married inside the rail- 
ing costs so much, on the first altar step, the price is a little higher, and 
on each succeeding step, the price is still higher. No doubt, many 
readers of these lines can testify to the truth of this. Oh, what a 
farce religion is! 

It is also well known that members of royal houses and noble 
lineage are, as a general rule, not permitted to marry the person of 

119 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

their own choice or the one they love, but must wed one selected for 
them by someone else for political or financial reasons. It is also well 
known that when the bankrupt dukes and counts of Europe and Asia 
come to America and look for a wife, they never fall in love with a girl 
of small or no means, but always with a very wealthy one. Can you 
guess the reason for that, dear reader? We read in the daily papers 
where matters of finance are discussed and certain sums and conces- 
sions are named as a basis on which the marriage of this lady and that 
duke or count can take place. We behold the spectacle of a mother 
asking a judge to release a certain amount of money held in trust for 
her daughter to enable her to get the sum demanded by a certain 
gentleman of noble lineage, before he would join in holy wedlock with 
her daughter. A child ten years old can figure out that in cases of 
this kind, and there are many such, the love for gold and title 
inspires the marriage, and not the love for each other. But have you 
ever heard of any clergyman of any creed or sect refuse to perform the 
supposedly holy sacrament of matrimony in cases of that kind? You 
will answer in chorus, "No." Neither have I, dear reader. These 
holy gentlemen receive handsome fees for performing marriages of 
this kind. One certain high church official is reported to have received 
One Hundred Thousand Dollars for welding a pair in holy wedlock 
so-called. But perish the thought, dear reader, that these gentlemen 
are willing and ready to assist in establishing legalized prostitution 
when a large fee is in sight. To think of such a thing would be 
treason. 

Christians of the white race will not permit Christians of the 
Negro or other colored races, although they belong to the same creed, 
to worship the same God in the same church building. How is that 
for brotherly love ? I know of a lone negro woman, who had to leave 
a certain congregation, or a split would have been the result. If the 
negro is human, and he surely is, then he is, according to the doctrines 
of all the one-God theories at least, a child of God created in His own 
image, and still his white brothers and sisters in Christ refuse to 
worship their common God and Creator in the same building with 
him. The church building is supposed to be the house of God, salva- 
tion is supposed to be free, and God no respector of person, yet we 
see many churches, just like theatres, equipped with money collectors 
at the entrance and the rule in operation, no pay no seat. And last, 
but not least, try this as an experiment. Dress yourself in the best 
style, representing a man or woman of large means and visit any of 
the old-style churches on any Sunday or Sabbath day, and you will 
find that the usher is ready and anxious to escort you to one of the 
front seats. No place is too good for you. The next Sunday go to 
that same church shabbily dressed, making the appearance of a man 
or woman without means, and then attempt to go to a seat in the 
front. You will find that you will not only not have the service you 

120 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

had the Sunday before, but that you will not be permitted to occupy 
a seat in the front. Try this, religious reader, and see if what I say 
is true or not. If you find it true, consider what we are told about 
God and His religion, and then form your own conclusions. I could 
go on indefinitely mentioning facts of this kind. The man with money 
to spend and willing to spend it, is as much the favorite in the church, 
or supposed house of God, as he would be if he went to a gambling 
house or house of ill^-fame. If you do not believe this, dear reader, 
arrange a stage setting like this. Present to the preacher and con- 
gregation of any kind a person who has saved a hundred sinners and 
performed many other really noble deeds. At the same time make 
the fact known that another person will donate a large sum of money 
to the church, and see which of the two has more attention paid 
to him, and which receives more applause, both from the preacher and 
the congregation. 

Before going any further, I wish to appeal to all readers not to 
blame me for pointing the truth out to them, but blame the existence 
of these ugly facts instead. The facts presented here, which no one 
who is not mentally deaf, dumb, and blind can truthfully deny, place 
a certain picture before us. In other words, they bring to the front 
the question, what do we find after religion, that supposedly great 
moral force or agency of and inspirer to everything that is good, that 
humanizer and civilizer of mankind, and last, but not least, that God- 
inspired training school, without which we would still be savages or 
worse, has, through its leaders and teaching, for many centuries in- 
fluenced the thought and actions of practically every member of the 
human race? We find, dear reader, that hypocrisy, greediness, un- 
truthfulness, hatred, and brutality to a high degree are the general 
traits of the overwhelming majority of the human race. We find that, 
as a general rule, the business man, large or small, is ever ready and 
willing to crush his rival to the wall, cheat his customers by adultera- 
tion, poor weight or measure ; the workingmen are ever ready to de- 
prive another of a livelihood ; the judges on the bench, the legislators, 
the police, and all other public officials, as a general rule, are willing to 
be guided in their decisions, their votes, and general conduct by materi- 
al interest, instead of by the dictates of their conscience and a desire to 
do justice to all concerned. We find the employer of labor, as a general 
rule, is ever ready and willing to endanger the health and lives of his 
employees for gain, yes, to blight the aspirations, and grind the health 
and even lives of mere children into dollars and cents. The doctors, 
the most confidential professionals the public employs are, as a general 
rule, ever ready and willing to prolong the sufferings of their patients 
for worldly gain. As already stated, even the clergy, the supposed 
representatives of God, as a rule, do all they can to keep their follow- 
ers in mental slavery, sell the so-called sacrament's space in the 
house of God, and even the supposed Lord's blessing for so much per. 

121 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

In other words, we find that after religion of one kind or another 
has had for centuries full control and influence over the destinies 
of the members of the human race the world over, the best that 
has been accomplished is a so-called civilization, whose unwritten 
watchword is "Cut the other fellow's throat before he cuts yours." 

At this stage of our discussion, many, if not every reader, will say, 
"Yes, the picture you have painted is correct and the conditions you 
describe are exactly as you claim they are, and we must admit that 
religion's teachings and its leaders seem to be responsible for at least 
a very large share of the lack of brotherly feeling among human beings 
toward each other, and then ask the following question: Has relig- 
ion, as an institution, done no good at all to mankind, has it con- 
tributed nothing at all toward civilizing the world? This question 
has been asked of me many times by well-meaning and intelligent 
people, and I shall answer it here as I did in private conversation. 
Whether, dear reader, you have been in the business of training wild 
animals, or wild, savage humans, to do useful and profitable labor or 
not, you nevertheless know that before either the animal or the human 
being can be made useful, both must be taught something they did not 
know before. This means imparting knowledge in one direction or 
another. To impart knowledge of any kind, whether for good or evil, 
necessitates the kindling of a light, so to speak, within the brain of 
the human at least, or, in other words, to teach him to think and reason 
to a degree which was before impossible for him to do, or, in still other 
words, to bring him a step nearer to the proper human standard, or 
what is commonly called civilization. For instance, the negro men, 
women and children, who were sold into slavery in the United States, 
had to be taught more than they knew, before they became as useful 
and profitable to their masters as they wanted them to be, and this 
naturally helped to improve their intellect. But surely you would 
laugh at me if I said that the slaveholders had civilized these people. 
To the same extent that the slaveholders deserve credit for helping in 
the civilizing of their slaves, religion through its leaders deserves 
credit for contributing toward the civilizing of mankind. This may 
seem to many a very bold and unjust assertion, but I feel confident 
that I can prove to my religious friends, that, while this statement 
might be a bold one, it is not an unjust one. 

I firmly believe that the first system of worship of any kind by 
our primitive ancestors originated through and was practised wit hon- 
est motives. I also firmly believe that Abraham and his associates, that 
Christ and His apostles, that Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and 
other organizers of religious systems or creeds were inspired by an 
honest desire to do only that which they considered to be just, and that 
for a short period after they had been organized, especially while they 
were few in number and without state help, their actions were guided 
by that same honest motive. But we have produced ample proof in this 

122 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

chapter that each and every religious creed, through its leaders, per- 
secuted those who advocated new ideas or disagreed with them in 
religious beliefs as soon as they were able to do so. Yes, we have 
seen that they denied liberty of conscience to the people, and that 
every conceivable crime was committed by them or at their command 
to keep the members of their own creeds from gaining or imparting 
knowledge, and from elevating themselves mentally and morally to a 
higher standard, or, in other words, from becoming civilized. Every 
student of history, who deserves that name at all, knows that all re- 
ligious creeds, especially the earlier ones, believed in and upheld 
slavery, and that, outside of a handful of parasites like themselves, 
these self-styled representatives of God prohibited all others with 
force, if necessary, from rising intellectually above a certain level. 
To this level the religious leaders permitted their followers and all 
others under their control to elevate themselves, because this was 
necessary to make them useful or profitable. Just as the slaveholder 
or any other unscruplous person in a similar position would 
prevent his slaves or dupes from learning more than, in his 
opinion, it would be good for his own interest that they should 
know. The leaders or priesthood of all religious creeds, especially 
of the older ones, have done in the past and are doing all in their 
power to this day to keep mankind in general and their followers in 
particular from gaining more knowledge than is necessary to make 
them profitable subjects in their line of business. Of a man who 
would use any and all means, especially brute force, to capture a 
savage and educate him sufficiently to be useful to him, the capturer, 
and then use every means at his command to keep this poor creature 
from gaining a better education, it could surely not be said that he 
had contributed to the civilization of that individual. Religion 
through its leaders is in the same position in this respect. This, then, 
dear reader, is the extent to which credit is due to all religious creeds 
and their leaders, only to a greater or lesser degree. Here many 
readers will say : "It is true that religion of all descriptions has done 
very little in the educational line toward civilizing mankind, but 
through its efforts, especially those of the one-God theorists, hospitals 
were built, and charities organized." I answer this by saying that 
hospitals and charitable institutions were built and organized for 
financial and other reasons, but not for any civilizing purposes. In 
many instances both of the institutions named have been in the past 
and are to this day used as instruments to retard mental progress in 
individuals. 

When the heads of certain religious creeds in this the 
twentieth century boldly proclaim that freedom of conscience is not a 
right that we humans are entitled to, and fight with all their might 
against the enactment of a law destined to grant freedom of conscience 
to the people, it is time for the advocates of religion to stop telling us 

123 



Is Religion an Agency For Good or For Evil? 

that religion as such deserves any credit for contributing to the civili- 
zation of the world, and it is high time for their deluded followers and 
others to stop believing it. I feel confident that every fairminded 
reader will admit that I have furnished ample proof that religion, as 
taught and practised in the past and to this day, is not the great moral 
force and blessing we are asked to believe it is ; that, on the contrary, 
it is the curse of the human race. 



124 



CHAPTER V. 

General Review and a Word by the Author. 

As the heading implies, I shall briefly review in this chapter all 
that has been written 'so far, enlarge thereon wherever necessary, and 
express my own opinion on matters which, although very closely 
related to the general subject under discussion, have as yet not 
been touched upon in this work. 

Let us see then, dear reader, whether I have accomplished what I 
set out to do. The so-called holy Scriptures of all the one-God theor- 
ists at least teach us that, this planet called Earth, and the 
people living thereon were created by an individual Supreme Being 
about six thousand years ago. Science has proven to us that this 
earth is in existence at least five hundred thousand years, and that 
living creatures in human or near-human form existed thereon 
for at least one hundred and fifty thousand years. This then proves 
that the supposed holy Scripture is not telling the truth in that respect. 
I have also produced proof, and very largely by that same supposedly 
holy and inspired Book, that there is not a personal or individual 
Supreme Being or God in existence who deserves to be called the 
almighty, alwise, almerciful, and loving Father. By gathering evi- 
dence from the supposedly holy Scripture, from history and from the 
knowledge imparted to us by the workings of the elements of nature 
and the effect thereof, and, by applying common sense to the whole, 
we have discovered that the whole theory of a God or Gods, taught 
by the one, as well as the plural-God theorists, is nothing more than 
an imagination which originated in the brains of primitive man and has 
since developed into a strong belief. In other words, that no con- 
scious, personal Supreme Being or God created mankind or anything 
else, but that man created the God or Gods he worships in his own 
imagination. I also feel confident that the theory of an immortal 
soul which inhabits the mortal form of man and is rewarded or punish- 
ed after physical death has set in for the good or evil deeds committed 
by man while alive, has been proven to be positively nothing more 
than an imagination at its best. 

In the chapter just closed, ample and unquestionable evidence has 
been produced that religion as a whole, whether God-inspired or not, 
is not the great moral force or agency for good that we are asked 
to believe it is. My efforts have, so far, been bent on proving that the 
whole theory of a God or Gods and religion in general, as advanced 
by the self-styled representatives of God on earth, is absolutely not 
supported by facts, or, in other words, what these supposedly holy 

125 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

men dish out to us as the truth is not the truth. Before we proceed, 
I must again call my reader's attention to the fact, that while I con- 
cern myself mainly or wholly with the one-God theorists and their 
teachings, the earlier or plural-God theory and its advocates will 
naturally share in the same fate which befalls the former. Now, 
friends, let us see what the true facts really disclose to us. 

The evidence produced herein proves to my satisfaction, and I 
firmly believe to the satisfaction of the majority, if not all, of the 
readers of these lines, that the real facts are as follows : This planet, 
called Earth, as well as other planets, came into existence perhaps 
millions of years ago through some evolutionary power not as yet 
fully understood by man, but positively not through the efforts of any 
conscious, individual Being or God. This planet, called Earth, existed 
hundreds of centuries before plant or animal life could exist thereon. 
Animal life originated through chemical and other life producing sub- 
stances present in large quantities on this earth, and developed from 
the smallest germ during a period of perhaps millions of years to the 
highest form of animal life existent to-day. Those creatures which 
are classed as humans, are not made of different material than those 
creatures called animals. They developed from the lowest form of 
animal life and are in reality the highest deveopled form of animals 
which exist on this earth to-day. This many readers do not like to 
hear, but the truth cannot be altered. As soon as the brain of this 
animal in human form had become able to recognize cause and effect, 
it discovered that it was more pleasant to bask in the sun than to be 
drenched with cold rain, or frightened by thunder and lightning. 
Feeling and seeing the effects created by forces not understood by him 
he considered, or, in other words, imagined that the sun, the dispenser 
of pleasantry, was the good and friendly power or spirit, and thunder 
and lightning the evil power or spirit, and here, dear reader, the first 
God or Gods were created. It is positively known that the sun was 
the first object ever worshipped as a God. The God of thunder was 
the next on the program, and was considered an evil spirit. 

As the mind of this animal in human or near-human form further 
developed, he recognized the fact that it was his duty to show his 
appreciation in some form to that supposedly friendly spirit for the 
good it did, and bribe the supposedly evil spirit to induce it to do less 
or no harm to him. This change of mind brought into being offerings 
and ceremonies, and then religion in a crude form had been established. 
From this on, the form of belief, the ceremonies, the offerings, and 
other conduct of the animals in human form changed according to 
their intellectual development. Their religious leaders, no doubt, 
were active in their own behalf before religion even in this primitive 
form had made much headway. We know as a positive fact that both 
among the plural and one-God worshippers at a very early stage, the 
religious leaders constituted themselves the dictators of the people, 

126 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

and that with every rival leader a new religious sect or creed was 
organized and the seeds of discord and hatred sown. The rival re- 
ligious leaders, who soon saw the advantage of being leaders over 
as many dupes as possible, caused their followers to fight each other 
in an effort to gain for themselves control over the entire field of 
operation. With each bit of additional power these leaders or so- 
called spiritual advisors became not only more intolerant, but corrupt. 
They bestowed upon -themselves highsounding titles, declared them- 
selves the God-appointed rulers of everything that lives, and demanded 
that they be recognized as such. In fact, they considered it treason 
for anyone to teach or encourage anything which might tend to deprive 
them of the power which they claimed as theirs. Neither were these 
supposedly holy men slow in enforcing their demands with the sword, 
if deemed necessary. 

Now, friends, we all know that many political, economic, chari- 
table, and social organizations have had their origin in the same or 
very similar fashion, and had the same or similar history of develop- 
ment. This, dear reader, proves that religious organizations of all 
descriptions and their doctrines are man-made or, in other words, 
have originated and developed through the efforts of mere man without 
the assistance of any so-called godly power or influence. Another 
strong bit of evidence is the well known fact that each newly organized 
religious system was an improvement on the preceding one. For in- 
stance, the teachings of Buddha and Confucius undoubtedly advocate 
a higher standard of morality than those of their forerunners. The 
religious system of the Jews with its rules and teachings was a decided 
improvement on those of any of the idol worshippers. The teachings 
of Christ, advocating the universal brotherhood of man instead of the 
limited one advocated by the Jews, and in other respects was again 
a great improvement over its forerunner, the Jewish religion. The 
Mohammedan religion, which came into being about six hundred years 
after Christ's death, is a mixture of Jewish and Christian teachings 
and ceremonies with the former predominating, and may be found 
by close inspection to be an improvement at least in some respects 
over both the Jewish and the Christian religion. 

The fact that even one religious system was an improvement 
over an earlier one proves that no Supreme Being or God, as described 
to us, is its originator and inspirer, but that it is purely and solely 
the handiwork of man. For surely if an almighty and alwise Supreme 
Being or God had even assisted in organizing and developing a re- 
ligious system, such a system could not be improved upon. So much 
for the origin and development of any and all God theories and re- 
ligious systems or creeds. 

Now, dear reader, let us see what the religious teachings, as 
expounded by its leaders or priesthood, convey to those who become 
acquainted therewith. It is true that the so-called Scriptures of the 

127 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

plural, as well as the one-God, worshippers contain noble and inspiring- 
phrases. In addition to this, the believers in plural Gods have other 
rules to guide them, and the believers in the one and only God have 
their ten commandments. It is true that the phrase, brotherhood of 
man, is occasionally used by both the leaders and the followers of 
all creeds. The ten commandments especially remind us of many 
things we should do or leave undone for the benefit of our fellowmen 
and ourselves. These noble sayings and reminders are very good, 
but how do the overwhelming majority of the professed believers in 
religion obey these commandments, and what does religious teaching 
do towards inspiring anyone to do good. Let us go on Sabbath, Sun- 
day or holy days to any church, to the one which, in our opinion, is the 
only true one, and listen to the sermons delivered there, examine the 
contents of each sermon, and see how much there is in that long or 
short speech that is really instructing, and would tend to inspire the 
human mind to nobler thoughts and deeds. Without giving the mat- 
ter a mental investigation, you will probably say that every sermon 
is full of good advice and everything that is good. You really believe 
this because you are used to them, and you have often been told that 
this is the case. But if you take my advice, just in this one instance, 
and make an investigation of that kind, I feel confident that every one 
of you will come to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority 
of sermons preached contain very little, if anything, that might be 
called instructive, elevating to the mind or even ordinary common 
sense. 

Let us examine the song and prayer books, and we find that they 
are nothing more or less than expressions of thanks to and praise of an 
imaginary godly Personality, and requests for more favors. What, 
dear reader, is there in all this that is even in the smallest degree 
instructive or elevating to the mind, in other words, that would in- 
spire anyone to do good? Reminding their followers of their duty 
toward their fellow-men is sadly neglected by these self-styled repre- 
sentatives of God on earth. But if this should happen to get on their 
program, which is very seldom, the people are asked to do so not for 
the sake of their fellow-men, but for the purpose of pleasing their 
particular God or Gods, their prophets or saints, or to earn a reward in 
the hereafter. The teachings in speech and print of all creeds with 
the possible exception of one or two very liberal denominations are 
useful only to implant within man fear of a supposedly invisible but 
powerful Being or Spirit and to keep him in cowardly submission of 
that supposedly God and his self-styled representatives. Over seven- 
ty-five per cent, of all the churchgoers and supporters thereof go to 
church for purposes other than a desire to pray and to receive spirit- 
ual inspiration. Only a very small percentage of churchgoers are 
what may be called religiously attached to the church, and those only 
for a certain period. They have to be aroused from time to time by 

128 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

vevivals, missions, and other holy humbug to keep them religious. 
My friends, the true facts of the matter are these : The teachings and 
tactics of the one-God theorist, as well as that of the plural-God wor- 
shippers have succeeded in producing a race of human beings of which 
a large majority are not capable of plain thinking and reasoning, whose 
brotherly love is a dead letter, and whose minds and hearts are filled 
to the brim with brotherly hatred ; a race of which the majority, like 
their religious leaders, are to this day against every progressive meas- 
ure advocated, regardless of how much it would benefit them person- 
ally. To be old style religious one must of necessity be intollerant 
and non-progressive. 

According to newspaper reports, the women suffragettes in 
England were mobbed by a crowd of men and women, had their 
clothes torn from them, were unmercifully beaten and some of them 
nearly drowned for committing the crime of interrupting a speaker, 
and in this year 1914. A very similar thing happened in Washington, 
D. C., on March 4, 1913. You can safely gamble, dear reader, that on 
both occasions, the most religious among them were also the most 
savage. Just as the slaves of the South could be aroused to fight and 
kill those who worked to free them from slavery, so we see in the 
year 1914, women who are to-day in England as elsewhere denied the 
right to take part in making the laws, which they are compelled to 
obey, attack like savages those members of their own sex who risk 
liberty, limb and life in an attempt to gain for the members of their 
sex the rights and privileges they are entitled to. I know that many 
people who sympathize with the women in their cause do not like 
some of the tactics the suffragettes, especially in England, employ 
to gain those rights. But to those people, I would like to say this: 
First, you must recognize the fact that it is hard to judge the acts of 
others rightly when you are not in the same position they are in, and 
second, you should consider that these women have been treated with 
much contempt by those who could help them, and that they are fight- 
ing against great odds. The man who is fighting in the open for 
justice and has only a stick to strike with, while his opponent is well 
armed and embanked, can surely not be blamed much for using tactics 
not generally approved of in warfare. In my opinion, it is a shame 
that in so-called civilized countries, it is at this late day necessary for 
women or anyone else to fight for mere human rights. Women who 
either benefit or suffer the same as men under the laws which are 
enacted, should have the same rights and privileges as men in the 
framing and making of these laws. 

The doctrine that sins are forgiven by imploring God, whether by 
the pagan method of bringing offerings or running a prayer on paper 
through a prayer machine or by any of the methods employed by the 
one-God theorists, including the confessing to a priest, has not only 
been at all times a device to make money, or accomplish evil ends, but 

129 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

is one of the most damnable and pernicious doctrines preached. To 
this assertion many readers, even those not so very religious, will 
take exception on the plea that to preach forgiveness cannot be wrong, 
even at its worst. I shall answer the objection by declaring that while 
it is praiseworthy for the aggrieved to forgive the wrongdoer, this 
religious doctrine has no such purpose in view, and that it positively 
encourages crime instead of discouraging it. Both of the foregoing 
assertions I shall substantiate. While it is true, friends, that 
none of the churches teach directly that we should commit sin, 
it may be said that they do so indirectly through that very doctrine. 
The reason that you, dear reader, have not discovered this is because 
you have never given the matter a thought. I feel confident, that if 
you follow me carefully, you will agree with me. 

The Jews receive forgiveness from Jehovah on the day of atone- 
ment, the Mohammedans from Allah through Mohammed, his prophet, 
and the Christians receive forgiveness of their sins through the 
precious blood of Christ at any time for the asking. What does that 
mean, my friends? It means, dear reader, that I can do any of you, 
through the foulest means at my command, out of house and home, 
cause your family to be broken up and scattered, destroy your good 
name, cripple you for life, yes, commit any conceivable crime and in- 
flict any amount of mental or physical suffering on your person or 
those near and dear to you, I can take your very life, and all I have 
to do is to ask God for forgiveness, feel sorry for what I did, and, in 
some cases, go through a certain formality, and the Lord God washes 
my black heart as white as the driven snow. In other words, God will 
wipe those black deeds of mine out of memory, so to speak, and make 
me as guiltless of them as if they had never been committed, and I 
am then acceptable in his paradise. If I enrich myself by despoiling 
you or yours, I am considered one of the foremost members of the 
church, and any portion of my ill-gotten gains will be accepted with 
thanks by the so-called representatives of God and used supposedly 
in the service and to the glory of a righteous God. And all this while 
you and yours may suffer mental or physical agony and even be de- 
prived of the bare necessities of life. No doubt many of you either 
have had experience of being wronged in that manner yourself, or 
know of others who were, and no doubt some of those who read this 
have had the experience of being the wrongdoer. I personally know 
quite a number of characters of that kind, of which some were good 
church members all their lives, and others joined after the evil deeds 
had been committed and they had become well fixed financially. 

Should some readers still doubt that the doctrine referred to en- 
courages crime, let me recite to them the following illustration. Two 
boys, Willie Smith and John Jones, of the same age and temperament, 
neither angels nor devils, ask their fathers for permission to go out 
and play. Mr. Smith speaks to his son Willie thus : "You may go 

130 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

with John, but remember, if you do' anything wrong, you will receive 
a severe beating, and nothing in this world will save you from jit." 
Mr. Jones speaks to his son in this manner: "Yes, John, you may go 
with Willie, but remember, if you do anything wrong, I will punish 
you severely unless you go on your knees and ask forgiveness of me. 
Now, friends, remember the wording of these two instructions. Be 
sure to note that one has a loophole in the word unless, and the other 
has not. Now let us follow these two boys until they come to a place 
where an opportunity presents itself to them, to steal fruit or commit 
other boyish pranks. Both boys are anxious to perform their share in 
whatever mischief there is to be done, but each boy also remembers 
the parting words of his father. Let us take it for granted that each 
boy, not being of the worst kind by any means, considers what his 
father has told him, before he decides whether or not to take part 
in this mischief. Here, dear reader, we must remember that Mr. 
Smith told Willie, that in case he does wrong, he is positively sure of 
being punished, and that Mr. Jones put in his parting talk the unless 
or the loophole for John to escape punishment by simply humbling 
himself a little before his father. Now, dear reader, picture these 
two boys to youself, each debating in his own mind as to whether he 
will be guilty of wrong-doing or not, and then decide for yourself, 
taking the circumstances into consideration, which one of the boys 
would, in your opinion, be the first to yield to the temptation. I can 
hear you all shout, "Why that is easy to guess. It will surely be that 
boy who is sure of escaping punishment by asking his father to forgive 
him." 

Well, my friends, the same thing that Mr. Jones told his boy, re- 
ligion of all creeds through the doctrine referred to tells every human 
being on this earth. They only differ in the method they prescribe. 
The same effect always follows the same cause. In other words, to 
the same extent that the promise of forgiveness would encourage the 
boy to commit mischief, the doctrine that sins and crimes can and will 
be forgiven for the asking will positively lead people to commit 
wrongs which they would not commit if this particular doctrine had 
not been taught to them. I feel certain that some readers will say, 
"Oh no, my church does not advocate that sins will be forgiven for 
the mere asking." In reply, I shall repeat that every creed in exist- 
ence with the possible exception of the Unitarians does advocate that 
very thing, and for proof, I have only to point to those sentenced to 
be executed. We see Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and those with 
other religious affiliations led to their death by preachers of their 
respective creeds, who declare to the world at large that the person 
executed made peace with God before he died, in other words, asked 
God for and received forgiveness. What can that mean, dear reader, 
if it does not mean that sins or crimes are forgiven for the asking? 

No matter how you may twist or turn, you cannot get away from 
the fact that religion does teach that very thing, nor from the addi- 

131 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

tional fact that it is a doctrine which does a thousand times more 
harm than good. Millions of people in this world, including many of 
those who are not the worst by any means, will commit wrongs on 
some of their fellow-men just because they believe that that stain 
on their conscience can be washed away as if the crime had never 
been committed. Undoubtedly most of these people would hesitate 
before committing a wrong if they felt that a wrong once committed 
remains a wrong until made right by the wrongdoer himself. I per- 
sonally must confess that, although I am not guilty of any act that 
could really be called a crime, I have been a stricter observer of the 
teachings laid down by the fundamental principles of Christianity 
and have been a better man since I discarded the belief that wrongs 
committed could be washed out of existence by confessing them to 
a supposed God directly, or to one of his representatives. Here it may 
not be out of place to repeat that true saying of Thomas Pain's in 
regard to the doctrine under discussion. He said: "Accustom peo- 
ple to believe that a priest or anyone else can forgive sins, and you 
will have sins galore." The above is the truest saying ever uttered. 
Read this over several times, dear reader, then consider what these 
words imply and see if you do not come to the same conclusion as the 
writer of these lines. 

Every implement of torture and method to inflict death in the 
most brutal manner that was ever used in any part of the world was 
invented and first made use of by religious people for religious pur- 
poses. The use of these instruments of torture and brutal methods 
of inflicting capital punishment was only then discouraged and event- 
ually discarded when liberal minded or non-religious men and women 
protested against their use and gained control of affairs of state. You 
may feel assured that many thousands of liberal minded people were 
tortured and murdered in the name of religion and at the behest of 
religious leaders before these fiendish instruments and methods were 
entirely put out of use in what we call civilized countries at least. 
Those of you, the world over, rich or poor, of high or low standing, 
who are to this late day still foolish enough to permit yourself to be 
used by the arch enemies of mankind as a tool to enslave the human 
race, which naturally includes yourself and your children, should 
think over this, investigate, and if you find what I say to be the truth, 
should refuse to be their tool any longer and stop denouncing those 
men and women whose efforts are responsible for the little freedom 
of conscience and other rights and privileges that you enjoy to-day. 

Yes, dear reader, as already stated, many thousands of the men 
and women, whom you are taught to despise, suffered the most cruel 
torture and gave their very life in an endeavor to make the human 
inhabitants of this earth a freer and better race of men and women. 
Remember also, dear reader, that this includes you and your children. 
Every progressive legislative measure ever enacted, every step taken, 

132 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

and every word spoken in defense of human rights and liberties can 
only be attributed to liberal minded men and women the world over. 
Furthermore, I defy any and all defenders of religion and all others to 
point out one single orthodox religious person who, by word or deed, 
has accomplished or tried to accomplish anything progressive and of 
real benefit to the human race. Many of my readers will mention 
Moses, Abraham, Christ, some of his apostles, Mohammed, Confucius, 
Budda, and others in reply. Those readers I shall answer thus: 
That while each one of these men was perhaps a good man, and while 
each one did perform a greater or lesser service to a small portion of 
his fellow-men, the effects of their single or combined activities in 
words or deeds cannot be said to be of real benefit to the human race. 
On the contrary, the teachings and actions of every one of these men 
were, after their death, so interpreted as to turn what might have been 
of some benefit to a detriment. The pages of history give us ample 
proof that it is impossible for a religious enthusiast to think for him- 
self in the proper sense of the wo^d, for a staunch religious believer 
throws reason to one side, which necessarily makes him a person who 
either follows the mental dictates of others, or for lack of such in- 
fluence, his words and actions are unguided by any reason. In other 
words, he is little, if any, better than an animal as far as his thinking 
and reasoning is concerned, and, as a rule, shows it by his actions. 
However, very few, if any, of the religious leaders were in the past 
or are to-day such enthusiasts. They were always shrewd enough 
to protect their own interests. Their apparent enthusiasm is a mere 
pretence to fool their followers. 

Although there is much more to be said on this same subject and 
much that I would like to say, we shall rest here from our labors in 
that particular direction and continue them in another. No doubt 
most, if not all, readers will presently say, "Yes, you have produced 
ample proof that the religious theories do not rest on truth, that relig- 
ion is not the great moral force or blessing we are asked to believe 
it is, that its leaders are not by far what they represent themselves 
to be, and that all religious teachings, especially those of the older 
creeds, have an evil instead of beneficial effect on those who come in 
touch therewith. Furthermore, I agree with you that the old style 
religious teachings and practises should be discontinued, but what, 
if anything, would you offer as a substitute ?" I shall not only offer, 
but advocate as a substitute, the very opposite of what religion of all 
descriptions as an institution has always tried to and has to a great 
extent succeeded in accomplishing. First, I would advocate that 
everything that is taught to young and old shall be the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth, with separate and fitting lect- 
ures and schools for children; second, the truth of a thing shall be 
determined by applying science and the power of reasoning, and not 
by praying or putting implicit confidence in the writings of supposed- 

133 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

ly God-inspired men; third, I advocate that every child from infancy 
should be taught that every creature in human form the world over, 
irrespective of race, color, creed, or sex, is one of his fellow-men or 
women ; fourth, that every human being the world over should be 
taught that every other human being has in every respect the same 
feeling as himself, and that, therefore, each human being should treat 
every other human being in the same brotherly spirit he would like 
others to treat him, and that they should do so out of respect for each 
other and not to gain reward in the hereafter, or to please a Moses, 
a Christ, a Mohammed, a Confucius, a Budda, or even an imaginary 
God ; fifth, that the female members of the human family shall be con- 
sidered and treated as full equals of men in every respect, and not as 
inferiors as has always been the case, especially in countries which 
are wholly or largely under religious control and influence. In other 
words, I advocate that the old and supposedly recognized command 
and fundamental principle of all religious creeds "Love thy neighbor 
as thyself," which has so far been very little taught and much less 
practised, shall be put in universal operation. 

When I read the five demands, as we shall call them, over again, 
and consider what they imply, I realize that for once at least the read- 
ers of these lines, religious and non-religious, will be united in protest- 
ing against some or all of them. I shall therefore take up each 
demand separately, and try to explain as fully and as plainly as it is 
possible for a human being to do, why I think that everyone of them 
with all that they imply is just, and, therefore, deserves the support 
of all honest men and women the world over. 

Let us take up demand number one. It will no doubt be argued 
by both religious and non-religious readers that to tell the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth to young and old, ignorant and educated 
alike, is not always a good policy and may bring undesirable results. 
For instance, to tell children under a certain age the full truth about 
sex relationship, or to awaken ignorant and superstitious people who 
are as yet absolutely unfit to reason abruptly out of their present 
state of gross ignorance by telling them the whole truth about every- 
thing, would not only be unwise, but in many respects dangerous. 
To this I reply that this very argument has for centuries been used 
as an excuse to keep the many in ignorance so that a few could profit 
thereby, and this should not be tolerated any longer. No, dear reader, 
the truth and the whole truth will not hurt young or old, the ignorant 
or the educated if the methods and doses of administering the same 
are the proper ones. For instance, what food is for the stomach, 
information is for the brain, and both of these must be given in a pure 
state and in proportion if the receiver thereof is to be benefited to the 
full extent. If I should say that both young and old, healthy and sick, 
should be given pure food to eat and drink, not one of you would 
raise your voices in protest, on the contrary, you would applaud me 

134 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

for advocating such an admirable thing. This is because you would 
understand that by giving pure food to young and old, healthy and 
sick, alike, I did not mean that the infant and the sick should receive 
the same kind and the same amount of food as the adult and healthy 
person. Neither do I mean, dear reader, that the truth, the pure food 
for the brain, should be administered by the same method and in 
the same quantities to children and the ignorant as to the adult and 
the intelligent. The brain of a child, like its stomach, is not able to 
grasp or digest the same quantity or quality of food as that of the 
adult. The ignorant adult person is intellectually still a child or 
mentally sick or both. They must receive the same treatment in 
supplying them with mental food that a child and the physically sick 
receive in supplying them with material food. Do not fear, dear 
reader, that to teach the whole truth will make people dangerous, to 
anyone except to those who hate the truth and wish to benefit by 
their ignorance. Nor is it an impossible task to teach him the truth. 
For proof, I point to the great and seemingly impossible improve- 
ments that have been made with criminals, degenerates, the ignorant, 
and the mentally defective through proper treatment by certain indi- 
viduals or institutions. If the rule in regard to telling the whole 
truth would be strictly applied for ten short years only, you would 
be surprised, dear reader, at the great change in the mental and moral 
makeup of the human race this would bring about in such a short 
time. Within two or three generations, we would have what might 
be termed a new race of people, mentally and morally at least. I feel 
confident that I have shown that objections to demand number one 
are out of place. 

Now let us turn to number two. To a demand that the truth 
in all cases shall be determined by applying science and the power 
of reasoning, instead of by imaginations, prayers, or placing implicit 
confidence in the writings of so-called inspired men, I believe no one 
but a religious fanatic or one mentally deranged would object. I 
believe that the day is past that any fairly intelligent religious person 
will deny that the combined application of science and honest reason- 
ing is the surest method to discover the truth. 

This being undisputed by anyone worth arguing with, let us turn 
to demand number three, a demand that all people should be taught 
from infancy that all human beings the world over, irrespective of 
race, color, creed, or sex, are their fellow-men and women, or, in other 
words, members of the same human family should really find no 
opponents. Yet many objections will undoubtedly be raised both by 
religious and non-religious readers for very similar reasons. The 
strongest protest will come from religious and non-religious members 
of the White Race, who wrongly think that the members of every 
other race are inferior to those of the White Race, and that they are 
not obliged to recognize races of other colors as their equals. To 

135 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

these, I would say that, while it might be true, that a majority of the 
members of the colored races, are not as intelligent and cultured as 
those of the White Race, this is not generally due to the fact that the 
gray matter within their skull, called brain, is of inferior quality, but 
very largely to the fact that their brains lack the proper exercise 
and culture, or, in other words, training. For instance, it would be 
foolish to say that the man whose muscle has not been developed by 
physical exercise is, as a human being, inferior to the trained athlete. 
For proof, let me remind you of the large number of negroes, Indians, 
Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos, et cetera, both men and women, who have 
graduated with great honors from American and European colleges, 
and become as able doctors, engineers, lawyers, merchants, and states- 
men as the White Race ever produced. And what is more, most, if 
not all, of them contributed a larger or smaller share toward bringing 
about a state of things in their native country which would enable 
all the members of their race to receive the necessary mental and 
moral training at home. This proves that the members of these so-call- 
ed inferior races are not only able to perform the same tasks as those 
of the White Race if they receive the same training, but that they 
are also anxious and willing to help in spreading knowledge and 
culture to every corner of the globe. This, in turn, proves them 
worthy of respect by any member of the White Race. 

At this stage of our discussion, many readers will say, "To con- 
sider the people the world over as our equals would naturally raise 
the question as to the advisability of assimilating with people of 
different races than the one we belong to, which, in this case, would 
mean to intermarry." I would answer a question of that kind thus: 
While it is an established fact that the strongest people physically at 
least are those who intermarry with those of other races, I would 
advocate intermarriage of different races for other than physical 
reasons as well. For I feel confident that if intermarriage of different 
races is helpful in improving human beings physically, it will not only 
be of service to improve them mentally and morally, but will event- 
ually wipe out all racial, national, and religious differences. This, in 
turn, will rob the enemies of mankind of their most valuable weapon 
with which to instill and inflame brotherly hatred in the mind and 
heart of men. I know that after this declaration of mine, most if not 
all, readers will shout, "What, would you want your sister or daugh- 
ter to marry a negro, an Indian, a Chinaman, a Hindoo, or a man of 
any other inferior race?" This question I answer with yes and no 
in this manner: If a sister or daughter of mine would tell me that 
she was in love with a negro, a Chinese, a Hindoo, or an Indian, and 
he were of good moral character, in good health, and of fair intelli- 
gence, and I was convinced that he loved her in return, I would have 
absolutely no objection to my sister or daughter marrying such a man, 
provided that she had no apathy or lack of feeling towards him on 

136 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

account of his difference in color. But if the man were not a fit man, 
physically, mentally, or morally to be the husband of any decent girl, 
I would oppose her marriage to him, just as I would object to any 
white man of the same character. The same rule holds good with 
a brother or son of mine. This declaration will undoubtedly take 
some of my reader's breath away, and they will say, "Why, that man 
is going crazy." But let me tell you, my friends, that I am not by 
any means the only white man who holds this opinion, and that this 
same opinion is making greater headway among both the white and 
colored races than many are aware of. The fact that a large number 
of intelligent and cultured white men and women are already married 
to men and women of the various colored or so-called inferior races, 
and the fact that they live happily together and that their offsprings 
are not any worse for the mixture in breed proves that my proposi- 
tion is not so preposterous or out of place as many think it is. In 
justice to all concerned, it must also be remembered that, as a general 
rule, the members of those so-called inferior races are just as opposed 
to intermarriage with other races, the White Race included, as those 
of the White Race and for the same reasons. The people of each 
race imagine that those of other races are not as good as they are 
themselves. Trusting that this will dispose of the objections to 
demand number three, we will pass to number four. Demand num- 
ber four reads thus : That every human being the world over shall 
be taught that every other human being has in every respect the same 
feeling as himself, that, therefore, every human being should treat 
every other human being in the same brotherly spirit he would like 
others to treat him, and that they should do so out of respect for one 
another, and not to gain a reward in the hereafter or to please a Moses, 
a Christ, a Mohammed, a Confucius, a Budda, or even a supposed 
God. To the first part of this demand, no fairminded person of ordin- 
ary intelligence will make any objections. To the last part some 
enthusiastic religious people might object on the ground that a God 
or Gods deserve and demand that all good acts should be done for 
His or Their sake, and that people have a right to expect a reward 
in the hereafter for doing good deeds on this earth. In answer to 
a protest of that kind, I shall use a simple illustration to show how 
ridiculous it is. Let us suppose that I had a chance to do you, dear 
reader, harm or good, and that I really did do you good or refrained 
from doing you harm not out of respect and feeling for you, but to 
please another individual or to gain a real or imaginary reward. 
What would you think of me ? What could you think of me ? Indeed, 
very little. The thing which makes any deed worthy of praise is the 
motive which inspired the deed. For instance, if I contribute a large 
sum of money to a really worthy cause with the honest intention of 
helping that cause, my act is praiseworthy, but, if I give the money 
for no other reason than to gain for myself advantages greater than 

137 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

the sacrifice I made, the act could not be considered a good act, and 
I would deserve no praise, for my purpose in giving was not to help 
any worthy cause, but to help myself. The same rule may be applied 
when doing good to please a third party and gaining a reward of any 
kind. Doing good deeds for reward reminds me of a lazy and balky 
horse who won't pull until a handful of hay or oats is held before him. 
The religious person who does good or refrains from doing wrong to 
gain a reward in the hereafter is in the same boat. If a righteous God 
were really in existence, He would not think of rewarding such deeds. 
Having shown that demand number four is just, let us turn to 
number five, the last of our demands. To a demand that the female 
members of the human family should be considered and treated as the 
full equals of men in every respect, and not as inferiors as has been 
the case heretofore, one should not expect any protests, but they will 
be forthcoming and even from the women themselves. A large major- 
ity of men and many women will raise the cry that the woman was 
never made to be man's equal, that her place is in the home, that she 
is not able to do all the things that men can do, especially fighting in 
war, and for these and many other reasons, she does not deserve to 
be classed and treated as man's equal. Their endeavor to gain for 
themselves the right of suffrage, and the militant tactics employed by 
the women in England will all be cited as reasons why they should 
not be recognized as the equals of men. Some of the strongly relig- 
ious readers will in addition claim that women were not created to be 
the equals of men, that the good Lord meant them to attend to the 
home and not mix in politics or in anything else that is man's 
affairs. Now, dear reader, let us put aside all prejudice for just a 
short time, engage in a little sound reasoning, and see what that will 
bring us to. The story that man was especially created, and that 
woman was made from a rib of man has been exploded, so let us 
discuss the things that we can conceive with our five senses and which 
are not ancient history. Anyone of us of normal mental capacity and 
over eighteen years of age knows that women are made of the very 
same kind of material as men, and that they come into being in the 
very same fashion as men do. So in that respect, dear reader, there 
is no difference between man and woman that could style one superior 
to the other. We also know that to propagate human kind, the 
woman is just as important a factor as the man, and that in this proc- 
ess, the woman performs the largest and most exacting share of the 
two. In this respect then she again proves herself man's equal, if 
not more than his equal. It is also a well known fact that millions of 
women the world over are bread-winners, are just as skillful as men, 
and labor on the farm, in the office, factory, and elsewhere just as hard 
and as intelligently as men do. Since in some parts of the world, 
thanks to the spreading of liberal thought, women have been permit- 
ted to receive an education and enter professions hitherto closed to 

138 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

them, we see them performing the duties of teachers, painters, sculp- 
tors, lawyers, architects, engineers, and so forth. Yes, many of them 
even perform the duties of minister of the gospel so-called. Just think 
of it, dear reader, women act as representatives of a God or Gods just 
as well as men. We see them exercising the right of suffrage in dif- 
ferent countries and use as good as any and better judgment than 
many men. We see them in the jury box, on boards of education, in 
state and national parliaments, as judges, as officers of the law, mayor 
or chief magistrate of cities, as well as holding many other re- 
sponsible positions. And the greatest opponents of equal rights for 
women cannot point out one instance where the women who occupied 
these responsible positions did not prove themeslves as honest, and 
often more so, as skillful, as sensible, and in every respect, as capable 
as men and, therefore, as worthy as men to hold these positions. And 
last, but not least, we know that women are as courageous and as 
willing and able to fight for what they consider is right as men ever 
dared to be. Even ancient history tells us of women who showed 
great courage and willingness to sacrifice themselves for their own or 
the rights of others. The women nurses on the battlefield are known 
to have performed their duties when in the danger zone as well, and 
with as little regard for themselves as men, and the history of the 
United States tells us of a woman who took the place of her husband 
when he was killed as cannoneer. 

If the newspapers informed us correctly, women, dressed in men's 
clothing, shouldered the gun and fought side by side with men soldiers 
in the late Turkish and Balkan war. W r hen we remember the heroic 
deed of Joan of Arc, a girl of seventeen years of age, who died in the 
flames for her bravery, the many other women of all nations who will- 
ingly suffered torture and death in the constant struggle of mankind 
for liberty and justice, and when we see a woman throw herself in the 
path of a racing horse in an endeavor to help the cause which she 
believes is just, when we see them rather face death by starvation than 
desert their cause, when we see women stand before a judge and 
defend that which they think is right in as brave and able a manner 
as Mrs. Pankhurst and others did, I think the most stubborn believers 
in the superiority of men must admit that their opinion of women 
needs mending. To those who object on the ground that, if women 
are permitted to take part in political and other fields of activities, 
the household duties especially the children will be neglected, I would 
say that there is no more danger of women neglecting their children 
when they receive and exercise their human rights and liberties, than 
there is of working, business or professional men neglecting the duties 
assigned to them in their station of life for that same reason. My 
friends, it does not matter in the least what you or I may think of a 
woman throwing herself in front of a racing horse, starving herself, 

139 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

and any or all the other methods employed by the suffragettes in Eng- 
land, we must admit that it proves that women are as courteous and 
determined of mind as men ever dared to be. When we look into past 
history, and observe what is going on around us to-day, we find 
that in the past and to this day, women have been able and wil- 
ling to shoulder the same responsibilities and perform the neces- 
sary duties, just like men, if the same opportunities are given them. 
In what respect then, is woman inferior to man? In no respect, dear 
reader. Woman is man's equal in every particular, and anyone who 
honestly thinks that she is not has no other reason for doing so, or, in 
other words, has nothing to blame for such a belief that the notions 
imbibed by him through teachings which, if not solely religious to-day, 
found their origin in religious doctrines. The earliest religious creeds, 
pagan or otherwise, through its doctrines and leaders declared that 
woman is inferior to man, and they do so to a great extent to this 
very day. The facts that the religion of the one-God theorists teaches 
that the Creator shaped man and blew his spirit within him, but did 
not go through the same process in making woman, that the Jews in 
the past and even to this day consider woman of little account in 
religious affairs, that St. Paul, one of the ablest apostles of Christ, as 
well as other apostles and church leaders, declared themselves against 
the right of woman to take part in religious functions, that council 
after council under the leadership of several popes, or supposed-to-be 
infallible, direct representatives of God on earth, discussed the ques- 
tion as to whether woman has a soul, without mentioning how the 
Mohammedans and the Pagan religions have degraded women proves 
conclusively that religious leaders, through their teaching, originated 
the idea that women are inferior to men. In fact, every religious 
creed in existence, with the possible exception of the Unitarians, to 
this day teach and take pains to impress on those concerned that 
woman is not the equal of man. The wedding ring which the woman 
alone is compelled to wear symbolizes that she has lost her freedom, 
and the fact that to this day in the marriage ceremony, the woman is 
required to promise obedience to her husband is additional proof that 
religion as such thinks of women to-day very much the same as it 
always did. Women are only welcome or permitted on equal terms 
with men by religious leaders of the old style creeds at least when 
they are needed to gather the sinews of war, or money, for the benefit 
of the church and its leaders. Since time immemorial, woman has 
been considered a play toy and slave for man and an instrument neces- 
sary to reproduce mankind, and that opinion has changed very little, 
especially with religious people to this very day. Of all human beings, 
women should be the first to turn their backs on religion as preached 
and practised to-day, for while men have suffered plentifully at the 
hands of that holy fake, women have suffered many times that amount, 
and the end has not yet come. In fact, women will never get their 

140 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

rights as long as that holy fake, called religion, through its advocates, 
has the power to prevent it. 

Every man who contends that woman is inferior to man not only 
declares that his own mother, daughter and sister are inferior to him 
and other men, but he insults himself, for, if his mother is a being 
inferior to man, he is the offspring of that inferior being. Shame on 
every man who considers himself civilized and holds such an opinion 
in this, the twentieth century. But more shame on every woman 
who chimes in with the men in declaring that woman is not entitled 
to the same rights and privileges that man is entitled to, for she brands 
herself consciously or unconsciously an inferior being. For, if she 
is man's equal as a human being, she is also entitled to all the rights 
that man is admittedly entitled to. A woman of that kind, and that 
includes the anti-suffragettes, acts not one bit more sensible in this 
respect than the slaves of the South who did not want to be freed 
from slavery and would have gladly fought those who tried to and 
succeded in freeing them. There was an excuse for the slaveholder 
to think that to make slaves of others was right; there is an excuse 
for the man who has for centuries been considered the superior of 
woman to think that this is right; but there was no excuse at all for 
those who were held in slavery to wish that they should remain slaves, 
nor is there any excuse for the woman who so far has been considered 
and treated as inferior to man to wish and fight for the privilege of be- 
ing classed as man's inferior in the future as in the past. That is ex- 
actly what every woman does, who is opposed to giving to the member s 
of her own sex the same rights and liberties that man enjoys. I have 
used much time and space in discussing the merits of demand number 
five, and I believe it to be both necessary and just, for surely, if one 
advocates the universal brotherhood of man, the first step necessary 
in this direction is to wipe out all fancied lines of inequality in the 
family between man and wife, mother and son, father and daughter, 
and brother and sister. 

Now, friends, that we have reached this stage of our discussion, 
let us ask ourselves this question : Why should human beings hate 
and despise their fellow-men and women and commit evil deeds on 
each other for racial and religious reasons? This planet, that we live 
on, has the shape of a large ball. On different parts of that ball, there 
are different climates or atmospheric conditions, which have caused a 
difference in color, build, and temperament in the makeup of those 
creatures classed as humans. They also speak different languages 
and worship different Gods. Is that then, dear reader, a good reason 
or a reason at all for humans to hate and despise each other? You 
know that not one of us had any say in the selection of our parents or 
place of birth, and that we could not all be born on one and the same 
part of this palnet, even if we could pick our place of birth. Therefore, 
none of us deserve any credit or discredit for favorable or unfavorable 

141 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

effects produced in our original physical, mental, and temperamental 
makeup. No matter how far apart and how different our places of 
birth might be, no matter how different the color of our skin, our 
stature, or our religious beliefs might be, in one thing and in the prin- 
cipal thing we are alike. All of us white, black, red, or yellow, large or 
small, rough featured or fine, uncivilized or refined, Heathen, Jew, Mo- 
hammedan or Christian have all the same feeling, and the same kind of 
red, warm blood flows through our veins. For reemmber, you white 
man and woman, that the negro, the Chinese, the Indian, the Hindoo, 
and all others belonging to so-called inferior races, even to the savages, 
love their children just as much as you do, and their children love their 
parents just as much as your children love you. You, white men and 
women, look into the face of children of any of the colored races, and 
see if their eyes do not speak the same innocence as those of the 
children of white parents. The members of all colored races also 
feel the pangs of hunger, thirst and physical pain just as keenly as any 
white man or woman. Let us, therefore, change our attitude towards 
our fellow-men and women the world over. This applies to the color- 
ed races as well as the White Race. If you dear reader, were, for in- 
stance, in danger of drowning, lost in a strange land, or dying of 
hunger, would you, highly educated white man, object to a negro, a 
Hindoo coolie, a low grade Chinese, Arab, Indian, or Hottentot coming 
to your rescue and saving your life? No, not at all. Your life would 
be just as well preserved as if the most cultured white person had 
helped you to safety, or supplied you with food or shelter. Or would 
a person of any of the colored races in danger of losing his life in the 
same manner, refuse to be rescued by any member of a different race, 
color, or religion than his own? Not at all. Again, the efforts of a 
member of a hated and despised race would perform a noble 
deed as well as the best of his own race and religion could do. I am 
positively sure that not one member of the human family of any race, 
color or creed, when in danger of losing his life or even something 
less precious, would care whether the one who helped him was white 
or colored, born next door to him or ten thousand miles away, whether 
a Heathen, a Mohammedan, a Jew, a Catholic, or a Protestant. Not 
one human being, even the most bitter against other races, would ask 
his rescuer about his racial, national, or religious affiliations before 
accepting his services. The most highly cultured of any race will not 
only gladly accept the services of any member of any other race than 
his own when in need thereof, but will express thanks to and in many 
cases kiss the hands of the one who performes the service. This is 
nothing short of recognizing the members of all other races as our 
equals as humans at least. If it is not out of place to do this when we 
are in danger, why is it so out of place when we are not in need of his 
services. Surely any honest man will admit that the man who is not 
too inferior to help us when we are in danger is also entitled to be 

142 



General Review and a Word By the Author 

recognized by us as one of our fellow-men, and treated as such when 
we are not in danger. 

No, men and women the world over, there is absolutely no reason 
or even an excuse for one portion of the human race to hate, despise, 
and fight another portion on account of racial and religious differences. 
We are all members of the one and only human family in existence. 
If readers of any race will contend that those of another race are in- 
tellectually their inferiors, I reply that you will find plenty of that 
kind among your own race as well, the White Race not excluded, and 
that it is the duty of every civilized or nearly civilized human being 
to assist in improving the intellectual standard of the backward mem- 
bers of the human race, just as intelligent sisters and brothers would 
do to a backward member of the family. These humans should be 
pitied, not hated and despised. They are not ignorant, uncultured or 
even savages because they want to be. The teaching they received 
and their surroundings have made them what they are. I sincerely 
hope and feel confident that the reading and studying of these lines 
will induce people the world over to think and reason for themselves, 
instead of permitting others to do the thinking for them, and that 
it will give every reader the courage to successfully resist all attempts 
on the part of those, who are interested in keeping them in ignorance, 
to lead them back into their clutches. 

We have seen, dear reader, that religion of all descriptions, as 
preached and practised for centuries, does not rest on truth, that its 
effects are evil, instead of good, and that there exists no valid reasons 
why we humans should hate and despise each other because we do 
not belong to the same race or religious creed. Furthermore, it is 
also a fact, dear reader, that the evil deeds committed and the suffering 
inflicted on one portion of the human race by another portion will not 
end until men and women the world over have learned to think for 
themselves and in the right direction. Not until at least the intelli- 
gent members of the human family are in that frame of mind that they 
look upon their fellow-men and women, not as of the white, the black, 
the red, or the yellow race, not as Mohammedans, Heathens, Jews, or 
Christians, but as human beings only ; then and not until then, dear 
reader, will war and all other misery that mankind has for centuries 
been subject to come to an end. This will not come to pass as long as 
the false and permicious teachings of present day creeds are permitted 
to do their damnable work unchallenged. 

I, therefore, appeal to the men and women of all races and creeds 
and in all stations of life to help in banishing ignorance and its twin 
brother superstition from this world by making individual and organ- 
ized efforts to spread to every corner of the globe, the teachings 
embodied in the five demands set forth in this chapter, in other words, 
assist in uprooting those damnable doctrines, which for centuries have 
instilled and nourished religious hatred within man, and help to bring 
about the true brotherhood of mankind. 

143 




TheResult of ProperTeaching 



144 



CHAPTER VI. 

Personal Talks to the Adherents of the Principal 
Religions or Creeds. 

In the following chapter or chapters, I shall devote my time and 
energy to pointing out to the adherents of each of the principal religious 
divisions or creeds the errors under which they labor and, if possible, 
convince them that the doctrines and ceremonies of their particular 
creed is no more in accord with the truth than those of any of the 
other creeds, by giving a personal talk to each one. I shall take them 
up separately in the following order: First, the Jews; second, the 
Catholics ; third, the Protestants ; fourth, the Mohammedans ; fifth, 
the Buddhists ; sixth, the Confucionists. 

Personal Talk to the Adherents of the Jewish Religion. 

Let me assure you, Jewish reader, that nothing that I may say 
under this heading is said to ridicule you personally, nor any person 
or thing you honor and respect, nor to ridicule the religion you have 
been taught to believe in. My sole and only object is to reason with 
and convince you, if possible, that you have been misinformed, as to 
the real origin and purposes of the doctrines, usages, and ceremonies 
of your particular church by your leaders, as others have been misin- 
formed by theirs. I only regret that at this time I shall not be able 
to treat the subject as fully as I would like to do. The fact that I am 
unable to read Hebrew or Jewish prevents me from getting the 
information I seek from your books, and to get that information by 
asking those who should be able to impart it is next to impossible. 
I have asked many very intelligent orthodox and liberal minded people 
born and raised under Jewish influence for fuller information on many 
points, but each time I have been more or less disappointed. The 
Jewish people are in that respect no different from those belonging 
to other religious creeds. Either they themselves know very little 
more than an outsider, or their religious prejudice prohibits them 
from revealing any information about their faith to one not of their 
creed. I hope, therefore, that in case you find that I have in some 
respects not been fully informed, or perhaps misinformed, that you will 
not pass judgment on me without taking this circumstance into con- 
sideration. 

Now, dear reader, let us begin by the very inception of the Jewish 
religion. As already pointed out in a previous chapter, the old testa- 
ment or so-called holy Scripture and the Jewish traditions tell us 

145 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

that the Jews were the first who worshipped the supposedly one and 
only God, and that Abraham was the first individual who recognized 
that it was a great folly or mistake to worship images made of stone, 
wood, and other material as Gods, as well as the first to conceive the 
idea that there is in existence an invisible one and only God. In 
other words, Abraham is the creator of the one and only God and 
the originator of the one-God theory. Now let us trace the develo- 
ment of the Jewish religion and see what and who inspired the doc- 
trines, usuages, and ceremonies now the property of the Jewish re- 
ligion. Circumcision is the very first religious act or ceremony 
which, according to the rules of the church, must be performed on 
the male child of Jewish parents after it has seen the light of day, 
yes, it is the very thing that gives him the right to call himself a 
Jew. This, therefore, is apparently a very necessary part of the 
rites of the Jewish church. Let us inquire then, dear reader, how, 
why, and when this came to be thus. According to the supposedly 
holy Scripture and the Jewish traditions, Abraham was a young 
man when he realized that stone or wooden images were not gods, 
and he had to flee from his father's house to another land as soon 
as he made his convictions known. This must be recognized as the 
first step in laying the foundation for the Jewish religion. The 
same reliable authorities tell us that Abraham was almost one hund- 
red years old when he himself was circumcized, and that his was 
the first curcumcision that ever took place. It is very natural to 
reason that from fifty to sixty years elapsed from the time God is 
said to have made Himself known to Abraham, and the time that 
the first circumcision took place. How is it then, dear reader, that 
circumcision was not practised during that fifty or sixty years? Did 
it take Abraham that long to make up his mind whether he should 
obey that particular command of God, or did God require all that 
time to decide whether circumcision should be one of the rites of 
the religion of his chosen people? 

No, dear reader, neither of these suppositions are correct. The 
true facts of the case are these : The people of that period were, like 
others, far from being civilized, and behaved morally more like 
animals than like humans. Sexual diseases was one of the natural 
consequences of such behavior. The learned men of that time, of 
whom Abraham was undoubtedly one, discovered that the foreskin 
formed a sort of pocket which receives and hides any foreign sub- 
stance very easily, but does not permit it to be removed without 
some effort, and that this was one of the causes, if not the main 
cause, for the prevalence of sexual disease among the men. Conse- 
quently, they decided that a cause of that kind deserved to be re- 
moved. The order to remove the foreskin or to circumcize all the 
male inhabitants was the outcome, just as to-day orders are given 
for all to be vaccinated to prevent or check disease. Those who 

146 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

saw the necessity of this knew also that it would be a hard task to 
make ignorant and uncivilized people obey orders of that kind with- 
out employing force or some other effective method. Also know- 
ing that these people were very superstitious and in fear of both 
the supposed God and devil, the leaders or those in power picked 
the method to which least resistance would be offered, namely, 
that of scaring them into it. In other words, they told these ignor- 
ant and superstitious people that the supposed God, whom they 
feared, had ordered that every male child when eight days old should 
be circumcized and prescribed fearful punishment for those who dis- 
obeyed. They undoubtedly also told the people that the devil, whom 
they feared perhaps more than God, would be ever ready to assist 
God in this by tormenting them when they came to his domain. 
This is how circumcision became the godly thing the Jewish people 
believe it to be. Before continuing, I shall answer a question which 
I have been often asked in conversation, and which no doubt will be 
asked by readers of these lines. Many Jewish people who agree with 
the writer that circumcision came to be a rite of their church in the 
manner that I have described, ask this question : No matter how 
it came into use, is circumcision not a good thing, and would it 
not be best if everybody would be circumcized? This question is 
like the kosher meat question, a great stumbling block for even very 
intelligent Jewish people to get over. I shall, therefore, try to make 
my answer as plain as possible. In answer, I say, "Yes, circumcis- 
ion is a good thing, just like anything else that will prevent or min- 
imize disease, crime, or danger. It is also true that many non-Jews, 
even absolute unbelievers, have their children circumcized, but the 
fact that, while 215,000,000 people, including the two hundred million 
Mohammedans, circumcize, at least five times that amount of the 
inhabitants of this earth are just as healthy and live just as long 
without the aid of circumcision, proves that, while it is useful to 
many, harmful to no one, it is not a necessity. A simple illustra- 
tion will be sufficient to prove this and show to what extent it bene- 
fits those who practise it. We all know that it is hard to clean dirt 
out of sharp corners, but it is not impossible. Let us suppose then 
that the government in a certain country would make a law that 
in every building, the corners must be rounded so that the dirt which 
collects there can be more easily removed. We would be justified 
in saying that to substitute rounded corners for sharp ones is a good 
thing, that it assists people to keep the corners clean and perhaps 
prevent disease, but we would not be justified in saying that rounded 
corners are a necessity and should be adopted by all people. Cir- 
cumcision performs the same service that rounded corners do; it 
makes the removing of dirt easier. 

This then, my Jewish friends, is the real reason why circum- 
cision, is a rite of your church and how it came about, and if any of 

147 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

your rabbis tell you that circumcision is a God-ordained affair and 
did not come about in the manner and for the reason I described, 
you are justified in telling him that he is either a fool or a liar. If 
it is necessary to perform an operation to turn a non-Jew into a 
Jew, then why is not an operation of some kind performed on the 
baby girl or the woman who wishes to become a Jewess. Surely a 
just God would not prescribe one rule for men and another for women 
to enable them to become one of his chosen people. You may feel 
assured, Jewish reader, that if the Jewish leaders and learned men 
who discovered the objectionable foreskin on men had found a sim- 
ilar hindrance to cleanliness on any part of the body of women, cir- 
cumcision would be practised on women as well as on men, and 
your rabbi would tell you that it was the will of God and an abso- 
lute necessity for women as for men. The fact that Ishmael, the 
son begotten to Abraham in his old age by his maid Agar, was thir- 
teen years old when he was circumcized, while the law provides 
that a child shall be circumcized when eight days old, is further 
proof that circumcision was not a rite of the Jewish religion until 
many years after it had been brought into being. If the originator 
or father of the Jewish religion and his whole household managed 
to get along for from fifty to sixty years without practising circum- 
cision or even thinking of it, it surely cannot be the important God- 
ordained rite the Jewish leaders tell us it is. If, on the other hand, 
it is a God-ordained and necessary rite of the Jewish church, what 
must have become of all those who died during the fifty or sixty 
years before it was practised or even thought of? Think this over, 
Jewish reader. 

At this stage of our conversation, I can hear many Jewish read- 
ers say, "Granted that circumcision was adopted as a rite of the 
church for sanitary reasons only, and that a bogy man's story was 
used to enforce this necessary law, you will surely admit that it 
was a plausible thing to do." In reply, I say, "Yes, dear reader, I 
agree with you that the Jewish leaders of that day did do a plaus- 
ible thing both by adopting that law and by using a bogy man's 
story to enforce it instead of employing brute force; just as I would 
approve the using of a bogy man's story to keep a child from mis- 
chief or to make it obey in other ways in preference to using cor- 
poral punishment. The people of that day were children in intel- 
lect and had to be treated as such. But I do not agree with your 
rabbis and other learned men of to-day when they keep that same 
farce up in this, the twentieth century. In other words, they treat 
you intellectually just like children, as your forefathers were treated 
four thousand years ago. Their actions, especially those of the or- 
thodox Rabbis, prove that, in their opinion, you have made intellect- 
ually no progress at all in the last four thousand years. If that 
was not their opinion, they would not speak to the rank and file 

148 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

of the Jewish people the same as their predecessors did four thousand 
years ago. If they do not consider you children in intellect to-day 
as your forefathers were of old, why don't they tell you the truth 
about things, just as you and I would talk differently to a person 
eigtheen years of age and older, than we would to a child of three 
or four, unless, in our opinion, the adult person had not improved 
mentally since his childhood days. 

The order not to eat pork and other things not kosher, is, to my 
knowledge, the next rule most strictly kept by the Jewish people. 
While many of the orthodox readers will perhaps admit that this 
order was given out of consideration for their health, they never- 
theless consider it a direct command of God and keep it in a strictly 
religious sense. The teachings they receive are responsible for this. 
The following fact indicates very strongly that the kosher meat 
order became a law of the Jewish church without any godly inter- 
ference whatever. According to the old testament or supposedly 
holy Scripture, the eating of pork and the hind part of beef was 
not forbidden until after the ten commandments had been given 
in the time of Moses, or about six hundred years after the first cir- 
cumcision is said to have taken place. It was adpoted for a similar 
reason and in a similar manner that circumcision was made a rite. 
The people to whom this command was given lived in a tropical or 
hot climate and were none too temperate in their eating habits nor 
any too clean in attending to their household and personal affairs. 
Pork, being a producer of heat within the human body, and not a 
healthy food for anyone in a hot climate, especially when consumed 
in large quantities and under unsanitary conditions ; and the fact 
that the muscles of the swine are often infested with trichina had 
no doubt been the causes for the issuing of this order. The Jewish 
leaders of that day decided and wisely so that pork, as a food, was 
a menace to the health of their people and ordered that pork should 
be entirely dispensed with. Knowing also that an order of this 
kind, just as the command to circumcize, could not be enforced 
by merely asking these uncultured people to do so, the leaders 
of that day, like their predecessors, called the bogy man to their 
assistance. In other words, they told these ignorant and super- 
stitious people that God had proclaimed the eating of pork a sin 
and would punish anyone who disobeyed this command. The fact 
that hundreds of millions of people, in fact, the overwhelming ma- 
jority of the human race, eat pork and are none the worse for it, 
proves that this command was, like circumcision, not an absolute 
necessity. 

The hind part of the ox and cow, animals which are cloven 
and chew the cud, was later added to the list of forbidden or un- 
clean food, whether wisely or not, I am not prepared to say. For 
we are not discussing the right of anyone to eat what he likes or 

149 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

leave what he dislikes. My purpose is to point out the true reason 
why and how it came about that the many rules and practises, 
which were adopted for humane and sanitary reasons, only, form 
a large part of the Jewish religion. This, in turn, helps me to prove 
that the religious leaders of your church are either very ignorant 
or dishonest with you. The rule against eating meat and milk 
food at the same time, the order to use different dishes for each 
kind, to bathe before each meal, and other rules were also adopted 
for health and sanitary reasons only. The order to bathe before 
each meal has since been modified to the washing of the hands. 
The order that a certain method must be employed in the killing 
of animals for food purposes, and that only one skilled in that 
art should be permitted to do so was again inspired by humanitar- 
ian motives. No God had anything to do with the framing of any 
of these laws. They all originated in the brain of man and became 
part of the Jewish religion for the same or similar reasons and by 
the same methods that circumcision, did. 

The order forbidding the making of fire or light, of tearing 
paper, and so forth, on the Sabbath day came undoubtedly about 
in this way. The learned people of that day knew that it was 
necessary for even the strongest human being to have one day out 
of seven for rest. In those days, matches had not been invented, 
and the only way they were able to make fire was by creating fric- 
tion. This required manual labor, and, therefore, was classed as 
one of the things forbidden to be done on this one day in seven, 
which was called the Sabbath. The ignorance of the people had 
also a share in the making of these laws. They were children in 
intellect and had to be treated as such. For instance, if one side 
of a bridge was absolutely safe to walk over, while the other was 
unsafe, and if we wished to warn people of the danger that lurked 
there, we would content ourselves with explaining the fact to an 
intelligent adult person, and we would infer that he had sense 
enough to walk on the safe side only. But if we were dealing with 
children whom we did not consider sensible enough to walk on 
the safe side only, it would be best to prohibit them from walk- 
ing on any part of the bridge to make sure that they would not 
walk on the dangerous part. The Jewish leaders of that day did 
practically the same thing. They knew that if they permitted the 
people to do one kind of work on the seventh or Sabbath day and 
forbade another kind, they would not be able to judge between 
the right and wrong kind of work; therefore, they forbade all work 
on the Sabbath, irrespective of how little or how much manual 
labor it required. This was at that time, about four thousand years 
ago, not only excusable, but the proper thing to do. But to-day 
when it does not require hard labor to make fire, and when men 
and women, as a general rule, are not children in intellect, 

150 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

the rabbis or other leaders of the Jewish people should treat 
them differently than their forefathers four thousand years ago had 
to be treated. 

Jewish reader, if your rabbi considered the fact that you, as a 
race, had progressed mentally, and if they were honest with you, 
they would speak to you in this fashion: Brethren, four thousand 
years ago in Abraham's and Moses' time, the members of our race, 
like others, were intellectually not as highly developed as you are 
today, and it was necessary then for the leaders of our race to for- 
bid and command many things which today are not necessary. The 
command to circumcize all male children was a very advisable thing 
at the time it was given and is even to this day, but no God had 
anything to do with giving that command. It is the product of 
man and man only. The eating of kosher meats, the changing of 
dishes, the bathing before each meal, and other similar commands 
were given by the Jewish leaders of that day because the climate 
and other circumstances made it necessary if the health of the people 
was to be guarded. The command that animals for food purposes 
must be killed in a certain manner and by one skilled in that line, 
originated through a desire on the part of the more intelligent to 
spare the animals to be killed, unnecessary suffering at the hands 
of brutal or ignorant individuals, and, like others mentioned, is 
not a command of any God. Your rabbis would also tell you that 
no God, if one were really in existence, could or would consider it 
a sin to strike a match, turn a gas jet, tear a piece of paper, and so 
forth, on the seventh or Sabbath day any more than on any other 
day. If they wanted to be honest with you, they would tell you, 
Jewish reader, that the tying of a leather box on your forehead, and 
the winding of a strap around your hand and arm while at prayer, 
and all other usuages and ceremonies of the Jewish church were 
invented by man and man only, and are not laws of a God. 

I said that is how your rabbis and leaders would speak if they 
wanted to be honest with you and considered you, as a race, grown- 
ups in intellect, as well as in stature, and not mere children as your 
forefathers were four thousand years ago. But we all know that 
there is very little danger that even one of them will tell you the 
whole truth as he really sees it, and not as he pretends to see it. 
At this stage I can hear many well-meaning and intelligent Jewish 
readers say that they believe that the rabbis are honest, and really 
believe what they preach. In reply, I would say that, while I am 
not a mind reader, and, therefore, not able to read their thoughts, 
I fearlessly declare that they have at this late day no excuse for 
not knowing the truth, and that, in my opinion, all of them 
know that what they preach to their people as the truth in this 
respect is not the truth. I personally know of Jewish rabbis who- 
are considered as holy and strict as any one in their line could be 

151 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

expected to be, who, on their most solemn holidays, in the seclu- 
sion of their home, smoke, and eat, and drink what is forbidden. 
To your face they appear to be in earnest in everything they do and 
say, but when your back is turned, they laugh at your foolish be- 
lief in all they tell you, or they pity you. When in the company 
of one or two persons whom they can trust — Rabbis, as well as 
priests and ministers will throw off that cloak which deceives their 
followers and show in word and deed what they really believe in. 
If you, Jewish reader, had the opportunity to see and hear a rabbi 
when he is his real self, you would positively change your mind about 
religion and the selfstyled representatives of God who preach it. 
No doubt, some of the readers of these lines have had that ex- 
perience. 

' In consideration of their own material interests and those of 
others, who, like themselves, benefit by the ignorance of the people, 
the truth is kept from the rank and file of their followers. We have 
seen that the doctrines, usuages, and ceremonies, which today com- 
prise the Jewish religion, were adopted and proclaimed from time 
to time and many years after its actual beginning. This fact again 
proves that the Jewish religion, like all others, is the handiwork 
of man and not a set of laws given by a God as described to us. 

Next, Jewish reader, let me point out to you a few of the in- 
consistencies practised by the best of the Jewish people with the 
full permission of the Church. It is a well known fact that no or- 
thodox Jewish man or woman would be guilty of making a fire on 
the Sabbath day, but we also know there are millions of fires started 
and kept up on every Sabbath day in living rooms occupied by 
orthodox Jewish families for the express benefits of those families. 
How then does it come about that these fires are made and kept 
burning in the homes of people who consider it a sin to make or 
even feed a fire on the Sabbath, and who would, under no circum- 
stances, commit that sin? Are these fires started and kept burn- 
ing by some invisible agency? Are they made against the will 
and without the knowledge of these orthodox people? No, dear 
reader, they are not made by a miracle, but by human hands in 
the ordinary way, and not only with the knowledge and consent, 
but at the command of those very people who believe that to make 
a fire on that day is a sin which is punishable in the eyes of the 
one and only God. What then is the meaning of all this? The 
real facts presenting themselves to us are these : We see strictly 
religious people who profess to believe that there is only one God 
in existence, that every human being was created by this one and 
only God in his own image, hire for pay other human beings, other 
children of that one and only God, to labor on the Sabbath. In 
other words, they not only permit, but induce, yes, pay other 
human beings like themselves, to commit an act which they be- 

152 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

lieve is a sin, a crime in the eyes of the one and only God ; an act 
which they, either out of respect to that God or for fear of pun- 
ishment, will not themselves commit. And this is sanctioned by 
the church through its leaders. Now, Jewish reader, is not that 
an inconsistency of the highest degree? Does it not reduce re- 
ligion to a farce? 

If the stories your leaders tell you in the name of the church 
were true, and a God, as described to us, were really in existence, 
an act of that kind would not only be an inconsistency, but an un- 
measurable crime. For instance, if a person hires or even induces 
another to commit any act which the law, acknowledged to be 
man-made, says is unlawful, he or she will be punished as severe- 
ly as the one who actually committed the unlawful act. At this 
very day, a man who has been convicted of causing others to com- 
mit a crime is awaiting the death penalty. If this is the case when 
we deal with human authorities, it must surely be worse for the 
culprit when he deals with an authority, who, we are told, can- 
not be deceived. I can hear all the orthodox readers say, "It can- 
not be a sin for us to ask a non-Jew to make a fire on our Sabbath 
because the man who makes the fire does not consider or believe 
it to be a sin." This proves again what a farce religion really is. 
Believing or not believing that a certain act is a crime will not 
make it or unmake it one. If a God of your own description is in 
existence, then he is the sole authority over all human beings on 
this earth today, his laws are made for all, and if disobeying any 
of these laws is a sin at all, it is a sin for every human being, be- 
lief, or no belief. And just as you would have a poor chance to 
escape responsiblity under man-made laws by declaring that the 
person you hired to commit an unlawful act did not consider the 
act unlawful, you would also have in this case to escape full respon- 
sibility. Severe punishment would positively be in store for you 
for committing that socalled sin. You may congratulate yourself, 
Jewish reader, that a God, as preached to you and me, is not in 
existence. 

We read in the old testament that God punished people, especi- 
ally Israelites, for merely having images of strange Gods in their 
possession. We also see at this very day thousands of stores kept 
by professed orthodox Jews, exhibiting and offering for sale images 
of what you call strange Gods. The question now arises, has God 
changed his laws in that respect since Bible days, or is the having 
of images in one's possession to-day a sin, as it was then. As with 
one voice, you will say, "No, this law about images has not been 
changed." If that is the case, every one of these Jewish storekeepers 
is committing daily a great sin, without even a word of reproach 
from the church or its leaders. The money which constitutes the 
profits derived from the sale of this unlawful merchandise is just 

153 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

as acceptable to the church leaders for the holiest church purposes 
as money derived from the sale of Jewish prayer books. I am 
aware of the fact that many of you will laugh and say, "What 
harm is there in possessing and selling these innocent pictures 
and statues when people are foolish enough to buy them." But, 
Jewish friends, that will not make the act more consistent with 
your professed belief in the doctrine of your church, nor alter the 
fact that it stamps religion a farce. 

The belief that on the Sabbath day, money may be taken in, 
but not paid out, and many other similar rules and practises of 
the Jewish people assists also in proving the inconsistency exist- 
ing between doctrines and practise. The doctrine of the Jewish 
church that those whose name happens to be Cohen stand higher 
in the estimation of God than those who answer to other names, 
and that inequality exists in heaven, the supposed resting-place 
for all good souls, as it exists on this earth today, shows the con- 
ception those who laid the foundation for that doctrine had of a 
supposedly righteous God. If a God bestows higher or lower es- 
timation on his children according to names, cast, or rank, he is 
no better and no different than any of us mortals, and does not 
deserve to be worshipped by us. A very large per cent of Jewish 
people, who go to synagogue and perform all the religious cere- 
monies, go for different reason than the professed one, with the 
business reason predominating. In the very city that I now re- 
side, I personally know at least a hundred Jewish men who think 
just as little of the old style religions as I do, and still they go to 
the synagogue regularly or at least on many of the leading holi- 
days. Many of them curse when a holiday comes, on which a 
good Jew must close his store, but they close the store and go 
to swell the crowd in the synagogue. When asked why they do 
so against their will, and in spite of knowing better, their answer 
is, "If I don't, I shall be ruined in business." That is an example 
of how religion thrives. Fear of being boycotted and despised by 
their religious brethren practically compels large numbers of people 
to give financial and moral support to churches and synagogues, 
against their will. To all of that kind of men, I appeal to act as 
men should act, to be hypocrites no longer, and to stop support- 
ing financially and morally a movement which they despise and 
rightly so, and which has proven itself a curse to the Jewish race, 
as well as to all others. My Jewish friends, do not denounce and 
despise the socalled unbeliever, for it is he who is responsible for 
the little real truth you are permitted to learn and for the rights 
and privileges you can call your own today. 

The story told to you about the Jewish race being God's chosen 
people is also not consistent with truth and originated undoubt- 
edly in an endeavor to dole out a little taffy to the early recruits 

154 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

to the Jewish religion. For argument's sake, let us take it for 
granted that a God, as described to you and me, is really in exist- 
ence. Is it then not reasonable to expect that, if such a God had 
four thousand years ago selected any race as his chosen people, 
and given it the promise that its members should become as num- 
erous as the sand on the sea, that they would be more numerous 
today than what the Jewish race is? The last census gives the 
number of Jews the world over as 15,000,000. This is a very in- 
significant number when compared with the population of the world 
or even with those of other races and creeds. When we associate 
this small number with the hardships and suffering the Jews had 
to endure for all these centuries, just because they were Jews or 
the chosen people, we must come to the conclusion that Jehova 
is either not as friendly to the Jews or as powerful as he is sup- 
posed to be. Many orthodox Jewish readers will say that the reason 
the Jews had to suffer as they did, and the reason they are small 
in number is because they have not obeyed the commands of God 
as they should have done. In reply, I say, "Granted, that the 
Jews did not do their full duty toward this supposed God, and 
that they deserved the suffering they endured, but what connect- 
ion can that have with the promise this God, of whom it is said 
that he never changes his mind, is supposed to have made to that par- 
ticular race? Did this supposedly unchangeable God change his 
mind after all? Since he did not keep his promise with the Jews 
to make them great in numbers, we cannot help but come to the 
conclusion that he did change his mind once at least. Think this 
over, Jewish reader, and I feel confident that you will come to the 
conclusion that the story about being God's chosen people is an 
invention like others mentioned. 

The belief that your sins or crimes will be forgiven through 
pounding yourself on the chest, uttering prayers, and asking 
a supposed God to forgive you is nothing more than a delusion. 
In other words, if you have committed a wrong on any of your 
fellow men a little ceremony and a few words will not wash that 
stain away. If you wish to be clear of wrongdoing or sin socalled, 
you must right the wrong you have done, and then do wrong no 
more. In no other way can a wrong once committted be undone. 
Nor will anything else, even the smallest request, come, or be granted 
to you by praying for it. If you do not believe me, try it and 
be convinced. Jewish reader, you must also get it out of your 
head, and the sooner the better, that only members of your own 
race and religion are entitled to brotherly treatment by you. No, 
do not tell me that I am wrong in that respect, for you know 
better than I do that I am not wrong. The fact that to this day, 
the orthodox Jew will not sleep in the same bed or room with the 
non-Jew, that he will not eat or drink what a non-Jew has pre- 

155 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

pared or even handled, no matter how clean and good it may be, 
proves that the hatred and disrespect toward the non-Jew does 
exist in spite of all denials. A real orthordox Jew will walk miles, 
and then in many cases buy his eatables in a very unclean Jewish 
store, before he would buy them from a clean store, kept by a 
non-Jew, right next door to him. Can you deny this, Jewish reader? 
I do not include in this every individual Jew, but I do include the 
overwhelming majority. 

Be honest to yourself at least; Jewish reader think, and then 
think again, and see if you can find a valid reason for hating or 
even disrespecting the non-Jew any more than the Jew. The teach- 
ing you received which instills in you the feeling that the mem- 
bers of other than the Jewish race and religion are unworthy of 
your respect and brotherly love, is the wrong kind and is as in- 
jurious to the Jew, as it is to the Gentile or non-Jew. The origin 
and development of the Jewish religion was no more the work of 
a God than that of any other religion in existence, and your race 
is no better than any other. As human beings each one of us is 
just as important as any other on this earth, and yet each one of 
us is only like a drop in the sea. Let a thousand drops be taken 
from the sea and you will not notice it; let a large number of the 
best and ablest of us leave this earth, and it will not be noticed 
in that sea of humanity. Each one's place, no matter how im- 
portant it might be, can be filled by another. 

Many Jewish readers will say, "We have reasons to hate those 
of other races and creeds." To this, I would say that the rank 
and file of any and all races and creeds, who caused the Jews, as 
a race, to suffer, are no more to blame for the part they took in 
these proceedings than the rank and file of the Jewish race can be 
blamed for slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women, and 
children under Moses, Joshua, and other leaders, or for crucify- 
ing Christ. The refusal of the Jewish race to assimilate with other 
races and creeds has done much to embitter others against them, 
and the consequences we know too well. It is the rank and file of 
all races and creeds that I appeal to, and I predict that much good 
will come from their awakening. The leaders have had their day; 
the rank and file will have theirs next. The hatred which fills the 
minds and hearts of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish, the 
Christian, and all other races and creeds toward each other was 
planted there not because there was any reason for it, but through 
ignorance on that part of the rank and file and a desire on the part 
of the various leaders to keep their followers divided and helpless 
Religious and racial prejudice reinforced by ignorance and super- 
stition were in the past and are to this day the implements employed 
to bring this about, and the efforts of those who employ them were 
crowned with success. 

156 



Personal Talk to the Jews 

My Jewish fellow men and women, I sincerely hope that these 
lines will inspire you to think and reason for yourself, to investi- 
gate everything not clear to you, that your hatred for others will 
turn into a desire to be of assistance to your fellow man and woman 
of every race and creed, and that each one of you will become an 
earnest worker in a movement designed to free the human race from 
mental slavery and ultimately bring about one race, one country, 
and one religion, based on truth and common sense. Remember 
the words of Thomas Pain : "The world is my country ; to do good 
is my religion," and let the noble sentiments expressed therein be 
your watchword from this day on. 



/ 



157 



CHAPTER VII 
Personal Talk to all the Catholics the World Over. 

In this talk, I shall address myself not only to the Roman 
Catholic or the largest Catholic faction, but also to the several 
smaller factions calling themselves Catholics. Their doctrines, prac- 
tises, and purposes are so nearly alike that it would be a waste of 
time and space to address them separately. The fact that I was 
born and raised under Strict Roman Catholic influence, and since 
my boyhood interested in all questions pertaining to religion, especi- 
ally the Roman Catholic, will no doubt be of some advantage to 
me in treating the subject under discussion. I appeal to all Catholic 
readers to read these lines with an unbiased mind, for I can assure 
them that every statement made is to the best of my knowledge 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the 
motive that inspires me is the best possible. I can also assure you, 
Catholic reader, that if I use plain words and expressions in tell- 
ing what I have to say, that no insult or ridicule of any kind is 
intended. It simply means that I want to call a spade a spade, 
or, in other words, tell the truth without beating around the bush. 
My sole and only purpose in penning these lines is to acquaint 
you, Catholic reader, with facts pertaining to the religion you be- 
lieve in, its history, and its leaders, which everyone of you should 
know, but which have been in the past and are to this very day 
carefully kept from you by those in whose interest it is to keep 
you in ignorance thereof. 

It being a fact that the adherants of each of the Catholic creeds 
or churches claim that their particular church is the original Christ- 
ian church, and that the members of their priesthood are the direct 
representatives of Christ and successors of his apostles, let us begin 
our conversation from the time that Christ is said to have empow- 
ered his apostles to preach and perform the sacraments. 

According to the socalled holy Scripture, and according to 
history, the followers of Christ, during his lifetime as well as long 
after his death, lived a communistic life, or, in other words, held 
all property in common. The leaders were honest and sincere and 
considered themselves no better than their followers. History tells 
us that for nearly three hundred years, these early Christians were 
haunted and persecuted. Large numbers of them were tortured 

158 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

and murdered by those in power for no other reason than that they 
differed from them in their religious opinions. During the middle 
or latter part of the third century after Christ, as the persecutions 
of the early Christians grew less, their mode of life, customs, and 
beliefs began to change. This was due to unscrupulous individ- 
uals, who as leaders did all in their power to wean the rank and file 
from their simple mode of life and kill the brotherly spirit within 
them. About 322 A. D., these corrupt leaders, who to all appear- 
ances had joined the movement for what they could get out of it, 
formed an alliance with a man known to history as King Constan- 
tine, who not only protected them against further persecution, but 
empowered and helped them to make converts, by force as well as 
by persuasion. You are told, Catholic reader, that this Constantine 
was converted from a heathen to a Christian because he saw, dur- 
ing a battle with his enemies, the sign of the cross in the sky with 
the words "In this sign, thou shalt conquer." Historians, on the 
other hand, tell us that this man Constantine became a Christian 
for no other reason than to strengthen his own position. For at 
that time, the Christians were in numbers a force to be reckoned 
with. The same historians also tell us that Constantine was at his 
best a very poor Christian, in fact, that he believed in no religion 
at all. At the same time that he built Christians churches, he also 
built heathen temples ; while he performed Christian ceremonies, 
he also attended pagan celebrations. He did anything to make 
friends and remain in power. 

In order that the pagan converts might feel more at home in 
their new surroundings, the leaders of the Christian church created 
for every pagan holiday a Christian one with a different name, but 
with the same or very similar meaning. The manifold pagan Gods 
were replaced by the Christians saints, and the festivities for each 
was very much the same. New and superstitious doctrines, rites, 
and ceremonies were inaugurated to blind and enslave their fol- 
lowers. Bishop Newton among others has this to say in regard 
to paganizing Christianity. He asks, "Is not the worship of saints 
and angels now in every respect the same that the worship of demons 
was in former times, the name only different, the thing identi- 
cally the same? The deified men of the Christians are substituted 
for those of the heathens. The calling of salt water, holy water, 
and the burning of incense or perfumes, the lighting of candles in 
broad daylight, the setting up of little altars and statues, the carry- 
ing of images and relics in pompous procession, the shaving of 
priests' crowns, the imposing of celibacy on the religious of both 
sex, and many more rites and ceremonies are equally parts of pagan 
and popish superstition. The same temples, the very same rites 
and inscriptions on Jupiter and the Virgin Mary. In short, almost 
the whole of paganism is converted and applied to popery. There 

159 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

is a uniformity in the worship of ancient and modern, of heathen 
and Christian Rome." The one who said this was a bishop of the 
Roman Catholic church, and he is only one of many who speak 
thus. Hundreds of priests and prelates were burned or tortured 
and imprisoned for daring to protest against the unholy methods 
of the corrupt leaders who were then in control of the church. These 
persecutions began as early as the latter part of the third and the early 
part of the fourth century. 

In proof of this, history tells us that Constantine, in the role 
of a protector of the corrupt clergy, ordered that all who had a 
book written by one Arius, a priest, in their possession, burn the 
same under pain of death. Arius had to flee to escape punishment. 
Nestor was another Christian preacher or priest who protested. He 
was banished to an Egyptian oasis. Savonarola, also a priest, was 
oflered the cardinal's hat by Pope Alexander, if he would stop 
preaching reform. This he refused to do, and he was burned at 
the stake. Hundreds of others protested, of which some were bribed 
into silence, while many were burned or imprisoned for committ- 
ing that unpardonable crime of telling the truth. From this time 
on, the corrupt church leaders had apparently only one object in 
view, and that was to exalt and enrich themselves at any cost and 
by any means, foul or fair. To accomplish this, they bestowed 
high sounding titles on themselves, declared themselves above all 
civil law, the representatives of God on earth, and the sole legal 
rulers of the world. They proclaimed that, outside of their little 
circle, no one had a right to education, to free thought, or free 
speech, classed anyone who presumed to have any of these rights 
as a heretic, and punished them as such. They made leagues with 
or against kings and princes, as their interests dictated. They stopped 
at nothing to gain their purpose. The bolder the corrupt clergy 
became in amassing riches and abrogating the rights of others, the 
more protestors or socalled heretics appeared. In the beginning, 
the leaders contented themselves with excommunicating, with 
branding them, and occasionally with murdering a few of those who 
disagreed with them. But when the protestors became more num- 
erous and more dangerous to the welfare of the leaders, more dras- 
tic punishment was prescribed and meted out to all socalled heretics 
until in the twelfth century, it was deemed necessary to prescribe 
the burning at the stake as the extreme penalty, and to organize a 
separate system and appoint special persecutors to detect and punish 
those who dared to think for themselves, or were suspected of doing 
so. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages was the result of this de- 
cision. 

Here, Catholic reader, we have a very short and very tame ac- 
count of the history of what is today called the Catholic church and 
its clergy from the year thirty three to about twelve hundred in 

160 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

the Christian era. If the facts mentioned in this brief account are 
true, it means that you, Catholic readers, are being in many ways 
very much deceived as to the true origin and purpose of the doc- 
trines, rites, and ceremonies of the church you belong to, and that 
the members of the priesthood from the highest to the lowest, whom 
you consider as above the ordinary human being, and whom you 
almost worship, are not by far the kind of men you think they are. 
Before I begin to present a part of the great amount of proof which 
I have to substantiate my assertions, I would like to say a few words 
to you Catholic reader. Every person over fifteen years of age who 
possesses a normal intellect knows that for evidence for anything 
that was said or done before our time or in our absence, we must 
rely on the verbal or written testimony of others. This being so, 
and knowing that the Catholics are taught to disbelieve non-Catholic 
writers and speakers, I appeal to you, Catholic reader, to discard 
for once your prejudice against everything that has not been said 
or written by an approved Catholic authority. For, dear reader, 
there are others besides Catholics who tell the truth, yes, I feel 
confident that when this personal talk between you and me is at 
an end, that you will be convinced that the average Catholic priest, 
prelate, or pope is not only not very particular about telling the 
truth, but that most of what they tell you and ask you to believe 
as the truth, is positively not the truth. Do not let your priest 
or anyone else scare you by telling you that it is a sin to read this 
or any similar book, for they, the priests and prelates, are the very 
first to read those very books which they forbid their followers to 
read. Yes, I feel certain, Catholic reader, that within one year from 
the day that this book is placed on the market, every priest, prelate, 
and even the pope will have one in his possession. So will the 
preachers of every other creed. If it is not a sin for them to have 
and read a book of this kind, why should it be a sin for you. Think 
this over, Catholic reader. 

When Cardinal Rampolli, whose residence was in the Vatican, 
died, all the newspapers told us that he possessed sixty thousand 
volumes of books. These were surely not all religious or story 
books. You may feel assured, Catholic reader, that his library con- 
tained every book that was ever placed on the index, or, in other 
words, forbidden by popes and councils. What is true in his case 
is true with every other priest or prelate who is able to buy the 
books. Now then, Catholic reader, if these forbidden books do no 
harm to them in any worldly or spiritual sense, why should they 
harm you or me, if we read them. The brain of the priest and pope 
is made of the same kind of matter as that of the poorest laborer. 
Do not forget this, Catholic reader. 

Trusting that you will heed my advice in this respect and in 
this one instance at least, we will go into the kernel of the subject. 

161 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

Let us begin by inquiring how and when the doctrines, rites, and 
ceremonies which constitute the Catholic, especially the Roman 
Catholic church, as we see it today, became part and parcel thereof. 
The overwhelming majority of Catholics no doubt believe that these 
doctrines, rites, and ceremonies were all instituted by Christ, the 
founder of the Christian religion, before he ascended to heaven. There 
is also no doubt in my mind that most priests would tell you upon 
your inquiry that it happened so, that is, if they considered you 
worthy of an answer and did not tell you point blank that you had 
no right to inquire into matters of that kind. On the other hand, 
there is nothing more natural than to expect that, if a God, as de- 
scribed to us, would go as far as to send his only begotten Son to 
this earth to redeem all mankind by suffering torture and death, 
and to establish the true faith, that he would also prescribe the 
doctrines, rites, and ceremonies even to the smallest detail for this 
newly established religion, provided he considerel them necessary 
or wanted them for any reason whatever embodied into the religion 
he established. If a few men of ordinary intelligence form an organ- 
ization of any kind, they adopt immediately whatever rules and rit- 
uals they want the organization to be governed by. So we surely 
have a right to expect that an almighty and alwise supreme Being 
would do as well as ordinary human beings do in that respect. Let 
us see whether this supposedly almighty and alwise God did do as 
well. 

The Reverend E. Cobham Brewer L. L. D. in his work entitled 
"The Dictionary of Miracles", which can be seen in any library, tells 
us that the name pope was adopted in 138 A. D., and restricted to 
the bishop of Rome by the Council of Toledo in 400. Confirmation 
was adopted in 190. Sunday was appointed the Christian Sabbath 
by Constantine at the bequest of the clergy in 321. This would in- 
dicate that up to the year 138, the name pope was not known, that 
for 190 years the Christians had no confirmation or initiation for those 
who joined their organization, and that up to 321, the Christians 
celebrated the seventh day in the week as their Sabbath day, just 
as the Jews do to this very day. Bear this in mind, Catholic reader. 
The first Christmas day ever celebrated was in 375. In other words, 
one of the two greatest Christian holidays today was for 374 years 
no holy day at all. The celibacy of the clergy or the order forbidding 
members of the priesthood to marry was first given by the council 
■of Nice in 325, permitted and forbidden by several popes and councils 
up to 1220; finally a decision against marriage was given by the 
council of Trent in 1565. Here, Catholic reader, we see that it was 
not always considered a sin for a priest to get married, and that many 
supposedly infallible popes and holy councils had different opinions 
on this subject. This then proves that the Holy Ghost, who, we are 
told, directs and guides not only every act, but every thought of 

162 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

that socalled direct representative of God on earth, is not always 
of the same opinion on a given subject, or what is more likely, has 
nothing whatever to do with decisions rendered and orders given 
by popes or council. Think this over, Catholic reader. There is no 
record whatever that a cross was used for any religious purposes 
until the third century. The use of the crucifix was first recom- 
mended in 680, and its use on altars made compulsory by Pope Bene- 
dict in 1754. No statues of any kind, not even of Christ, were known 
up to the fifth century. Thus we see that for two hundred years 
or over, the cross was not the symbol of Christianity, and that the 
necessity for statues of saints and even of Christ, without which to- 
day no Catholic church or home is considered complete, was not rec- 
ognized until nearly five hundred years after Christ. The first 
monastic order was formed in Egypt between 320 and 330. You 
see, dear reader, it required 320 years for Christians to realize that 
convent life is as pleasing to God and as productive of good, spirit- 
ually at least, as we are now asked to believe it is. Does it not 
strike you a little queer that God did not help them to realize this 
fact earlier, that is, if it is true that a God, as described to us, is in 
existence. 

The existence of purgatory was first suggested in 407 by St. 
Augustine and inculcated by Pope Gregory, the Great, in 593. Here 
we see, Catholic reader, that the existence of purgatory had to be 
suggested before it came into being, and a very profitable suggest- 
ion it was for the priesthood, but a damnable one as far as the rank 
and file is concerned. Now, my Catholic friends, to suggest that a 
certain thing should be done or certain material should be used means 
that the one who does the suggesting calls attention to the fact that 
the thing to be done or the material to be used might turn out to 
be of benefit to some one. For instance, partners in business or 
members of organizations will suggest that certain methods for ac- 
complishing certain ends should be used in the interest of the busi- 
ness or organization. Knowing the meaning of the word suggest- 
ing, the question arises : What could have been the object in sug- 
gesting the existence of purgatory? To answer that question, we 
must first determine what is meant by the word purgatory. If it 
is a civilized and honest method for making new converts to the 
cause, then objections against the suggestion are out of place. But, 
dear reader, no one knows better than you that purgatory is supposed 
to be a place where the supposed souls of Catholics at least, who 
are not bad enough to go to hell and not pure enough to enter heaven, 
go to be cleansed through suffering of the last remnant of sin that 
still clings to them, and from which, unlike hell, the soul will be 
released when that process is completed. If it is true that such a 
place is in existence, it must be of godly origin, and in existence 
since man committed sin or crime, therefore, suggestion would not 

163 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

have been necessary. If, on the other hand, a place of that kind is 
not in existence, what good can suggestion do? Every Catholic 
of normal intellect and over eighteen years of age must 
surely know that a place of that kind cannot be brought about by 
suggesting it, or even by proclaiming it into existence, as was 
done by Pope Gregory, the Great, 185 years after it had been sug- 
gested that a place of that kind should exist. If it is impossible 
to proclaim a place such as purgatory is supposed to be, into exist- 
ence, then what can all this suggesting and proclaiming mean? 
The true fact of the matter, Catholic reader, is this : A place of 
that kind was not then and is not now in existence, and never was as 
much as dreamed of by these supposedly holy and God-ordained 
men until nearly four hundred years after Christ's death. Now we 
have come to the point, when the question as to the object of sug- 
gesting purgatory can be answered. The answer is : A place of 
that kind really not being in existence, but it being considered advis- 
able and profitable that such a place should exist, it was suggested 
by St. Augustine to establish a place of that kind in the imagination 
of the ignorant and deluded people. The suggestion was acted upon 
185 years later, and purgatory came into being. In other words, 
the heads of the church proclaimed purgatory into existence and com- 
pelled the faithful to believe it to be so. No doubt the worthy St. 
Augustine and later others explained to the honorable leaders of the 
church how profitable it would be to them if their followers could 
be trained into believing that the souls of their departed loved ones 
suffered in purgatory, and that the time of their suffering could be 
shortened by having masses read at so much per each reading. 
Think over this, Catholic reader, it is well worth your while. 

Millions of dollars have since been niched from Catholics, and 
much of it from the poorest of the poor under the pretence of pray- 
ing souls out of purgatory. Fifty years ago Father Chiniquy, a 
priest for twenty-five years, estimated that in North America alone, 
ten Million Dollars are spent yearly for that purpose. Here then, 
Catholic reader, We have the spectacle of religious leaders and sup- 
posedly good and holy men inventing a place of suffering for the 
soul from which prayer paid for with money can release them. If 
they did not invent purgatory, how is it that it took these learned 
men nearly six hundred years to discover that such a place was in 
existence? Purgatory is an invention and nothing else, and, in my 
opinion, at least nine hundred and ninety out of every one thousand 
priests, if not all of them, know it to be an invention, but keep you 
in ignorance of that fact, just as any ordinary swindler would take 
good care that his victims did not discover the methods he employs 
in his swindling operations. Should any priest or prelate deny 
that purgatory was invented by the early church leaders, he lies 
in the face of historic evidence. Should such a case arise and be 

164 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

brought to my attention, I shall prove that he is not telling you the 
truth. I repeat again, Catholic reader, that a place, as purgatory is 
supposed to be, is not in existence, and the sooner you get convin- 
ced of this, the better it is for your pocketbook. 

The Veneration of relics was first introduced in the fourth 
century and traffic in them forbidden by Pope Theodorus in 386; 
Veneration of relics was condemned by Pope Vigilantius about 405 ; 
the Council of Saragossa in 592 ordered relics to be tested by fire. 
Veneration of relics and traffic therein were permitted and forbidden 
by several Popes and Councils until the Council of Trent enjoined 
it December 25, 1563. Here, Catholic reader, we see that the ven- 
eration of relics was not thought of until more than three hundred 
years after Christ, and that from the fourth to the sixteenth century, 
the infallible popes disagreed as to whether relics of anyone deser- 
ved veneration. You also notice, Catholic reader, that traffic in 
relics was forbidden by Pope Theodorous. The word traffic stands 
for trading, bargaining, commerce. From this we must conclude 
that relics were used even at that early date for business purposes, 
just like any recognized articles of commerce. My Catholic friends, 
how about the modern method of turning relics into cash by hold- 
ing novenas? Think this over, Catholic reader. 

The Virgin Mary was first honored in the fifth century. Prayers 
were first addressed to her in 599 under Gregory the Great. The 
office of the Virgin Mary was enjoined by the Council of Clermant 
in 1095 to be recited daily by the clergy. This information shows 
us that it took these socalled representatives of God on earth nearly 
six hundred years to discover that Mary, the mother of Christ, was 
worthy of veneration and able to intercede as mediator between 
God and man. You know, Catholic reader, that today Mary, the 
mother of Christ or the Virgin Mary, as she is called, receives from 
most Catholics with the sanction of the Catholic Church, equal, and 
from many, greater honors than God himself, and that her services 
as mediator, are considered indispensible. Catholics are not only 
told, but commanded, to believe that she sits at the right hand of 
Christ in heaven, and that she is able to induce God to grant re- 
quests which God v/ould not grant without her intercession. Millions 
of Catholics the world over seldom think of asking God for anything, 
except through the Virgin Mary socalled. My Catholic friends, if 
it is true that a God, as described to us, is in existence and that 
Mary, the mother -of Christ, has such great influence for good with 
this God, then she must surely have had this influence since she 
sits at the right hand of God in heaven. How, then, comes it that 
the selfstyled representatives of God on earth, including many sup- 
posedly infallible vicars of Christ, did not know anything about this 
until nearly six hundred years later? Does it not seem strange to 
you, that a God, as described to us, did not reveal this glorious fact 

165 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

to the church leaders before He did? You may be sure, Catholic 
reader, that if it were true that Mary, the mother of Christ, possessed 
the mediating power attributed to her by the Catholic church, the 
church leaders from the apostles down would have known this fact. 
The reason they did not know anything about this for nearly 
six hundred years is that what is doled out to us today as the truth 
in that respect is not the truth, but an invention pure and simple. 
Remember, Catholic reader, I do not ask or command you to blindly 
believe what I say, as your priest does, but I do ask you to think 
over the facts I am pointing out to you, to investigate, and then to 
draw your own conclusion. Can there be anything fairer, dear 
reader? The Catholic priesthood from the humblest priest to the 
pope will not ask you to investigate what they insist on you be- 
lieving as the truth, and you know it well. Instead, they will ex- 
communicate you if you dare to think of doing such a thing. The 
first canonization or the making of saints took place January 30, 
993 through Pope John XVI. According to this bit of historic 
evidence, nearly one thousand years elapsed before any vicar of 
Christ or any holy and inspired council considered it necessary or 
even advisable to raise one of the many martyrs or anyone else to 
sainthood. My Catholic friends, does it not seem strange to you, 
that if saints are really in existence and have the mediating power 
they are supposed to have, that the selfstyled vicars of Christ had no 
knowledge of this for nearly a thousand years. The infallibility 
of popes was first claimed in 750, but not made a dogma of the 
church until 1870. Here we see that for seven hundred years after 
Christ, no one suspected that the many popes, who had filled the 
papal chair, might have been infallible human beings, and that not 
until the latter part of the nineteenth century did the Roman Catholic 
church know for certain that her Popes become infallible the moment 
they are elevated to that position. The infallibilty claimed for the 
popes means that they are incapable of erring in anything they say 
or do in relation to church affairs. In other words, when the pope 
speaks for the church, his wisdom is equal to that of God's. This 
was surely a very important thing to know, and can you believe, 
Catholic reader, that if a God, as described to us, had bestowed in- 
fallibilty on his direct representative on earth that he would have 
waited nearly nineteen hundred years before making an important 
fact of that kind known to the world, or at least to the recipent of 
this great honor. Here, Catholic reader, it may not be out of place 
to inform you of the fact, that the belief in the infallibility of the 
popes became a law of the church by a vote of 536 to 199. This 
shows you that out of 728 prelates present in the Council 192 voted 
against making a human being, in the opinion of the adherents of 
the Catholic church, equal to the God he is supposed to represent. 
It further proves that the infallibility of the popes was established 

166 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

in the same identical way that titles and power have been bestowed 
upon other human beings, such as kings, princes, and so forth. 

Holy water was first used by Pope Leo in 682 and first used 
in exorcism, or driving away evil spirits and for blessing purposes, 
by Pope Alex. II in 1070. The use of holy oil for religious pur- 
poses was enjoined by the Council of Trent 1545. Here we see 
that the usefullness of the socalled holy water and holy oil, two 
articles which today all Catholics are commanded to recognize as 
indispensible factors in the exercise of certain religious functions, 
was not known to the holy fathers of the church until 682 and 1545 
respectively. The Catholic church teaches us that holy water so- 
called has a strong tendency to keep evil in all shapes and forms 
away from any person or article it is sprinkled on, and that holy 
oil is an absolute necessity in the performing of holy unctions or 
anointing the sick, or, in other words, in washing away the sins of 
those who are unconscious, and, therefore, unable to make an oral 
confession. Again, I ask you, Catholic reader, does it not seem 
strange that such valuable information was not sooner revealed 
to these supposed representatives of God on earth? Think this 
over, and draw your own conclusion. 

Here I shall digress to inform you that holy water socalled is 
nothing more than salt water. I have been a mass boy for four 
years. During that period, I assisted the parish priest on many occas- 
ions in the making of holy water. The priest, besides praying over 
the water, throws one or more handsful of what he calls blessed 
salt, into the basin according to the amount of water it contains. 
Without this salt, holy water socalled would in time become foul 
and smell just like all unsalted water will. If you do not believe 
me, Catholic reader, ask your priest to bless a bottle of water for 
you without using salt, but make sure that he does not use any. 
Then place a bottle of plain unblessed water beside it and see if the 
water in both bottles does not commence to emit a bad odor at 
one and the same time. Try this, Catholic reader, and be convinced. 

Indulgences were first bestowed by Bishop Ponce of Aries in 
1002, and at a later date made good use of by popes and prelates. 
Indulgence means that the pope or a lower dignitary of the church 
empowered by the pope can forgive the sins socalled of any number 
of people by simply declaring that they shall be forgiven without 
requiring a confession of any kind. Yes, it means that he can forgive 
sins or crimes before they are committed. This, if true, is surely 
a great power and honor for the pope and a great blessing for the 
people. If a God, as described to us, did bestow such power on his 
direct representative on earth, he surely would have made this im- 
portant fact known to the very first one, and yet we find that a large 
number of popes came and went apparently without knowing that 
any such power was vested in them. Can you, Catholic reader, 

167 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

guess the reason why they did not know? The answer is, because 
no God ever vested any such power in any human being. The in- 
troduction of indulgences was a scheme like many others and a 
very profitable one invented by the corrupt clergy to further their 
material interests. According to historians, indulgences were only 
issued when the pope needed money or dupes to slaughter heretics. 

The apostle's creed in its present form, which is nothing more 
or less than a declaration of faith, was adopted in the eleventh cen- 
tury. This intimates that the first declaration of faith was not in the 
present form, that it was doctored from time to time, and that 
the infallible Catholic church was for a period of at least one thou- 
sand years unable to decide what the declaration of faith should 
be. . In other words, the declaration of what is today a worldwide 
religious creed originated and was improved upon exactly as is the 
case with a declaration of principles of a nation or of any ordinary 
organization. Again I advise you, Catholic reader, to give this your 
thoughtful consideration. 

Auricular confession, which means the present day method of 
confessing into the priest's ear, was imposed by the fourth Lateran 
Council in 1215. Here we see, Catholic reader, that the sacrament 
of pennance in its present form at least was instituted twelve hun- 
dred years after the founding of the church. If this is so, it proves 
that even the sacraments of the church, which are supposed to be 
a pledge of grace instituted by God Himself, were subject to changes 
like many other doctrines and usuages of the church. If, on the other 
hand, confession was not practised in any other form than the present 
one, it proves that there was no sacrament of pennance until the 
thirteenth century. Confession in its present form is declared by 
the church to be of absolute necessity to the salvation of every 
Catholic over thirteen years of age, and to neglect going to con- 
fession for one year is equal to inviting excommunication. If con- 
fession in its present form is today an absolute necessity for the 
salvation of every rational Catholic over thirteen years of age, We 
have every reason to believe that it was also necessary during the 
preceding twelve centuries. If so, this question arises : What became 
of the millions of people who died during these twelve centuries 
without having an opportunity to go to confession? If, on the 
other hand, confessing in its present form was not necessary dur- 
ing the first twelve centuries of the Christian era, why is it so 
necessary now? My Catholic friends, the true facts of the matter 
are these: The early Christians had undoubtedly a way, like the 
Jews or the Protestants of today, of confessing their sins or crimes 
directly to an imaginary God without using any middle man at all. 
It is also possible that confession in its present form had been en- 
couraged and was practised by some people before the year 1215, 
but it was not made compulsory by the church until that date. Un- 

168 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

doubtedly some priests and laymen did and some did not believe in 
confessing or hearing confession in its present form. When the 
Inquisition was fairly under way, and the detecting of heretics be- 
came the main order of the day, the then reigning pope and his 
satellites or willing tools were not slow in recognizing the fact that 
auricular or ear confession universally enforced would become the 
best method imaginable to induce the ignorant and superstitious 
people of high and low standing to point out other socalled here- 
tics, as well as make their own shortcomings known to the inquisi- 
tor. Having the power to do what they liked, the leaders suited the 
action to the thought and made auricular confession compulsory. 
This, Catholic reader, is undoubtedly the true account of how and 
why confession in its present form came to be a rule of the church, 
and if any priest or prelate of the Catholic church tells you that 
confession in the present form was practised in the Catholic church 
since its inception, you are justified in telling him that he is either 
an ignoramus or a falsifier. 

The College of Cardinals was first instituted in 817, and the right 
to elect the pope conferred on it by Pope Nicholas in 1057. This his- 
toric evidence conveys to us the information that the College of 
Cardinals, which is recognized today by all Roman Catholics at least, 
as the sole and only body of men authorized by God to say who 
the successor of St. Peter or the new vicar of Christ shall be, did 
not come into existence until the beginning of the ninth century, and 
that the cardinals individually or as a body were not vested with 
the authority to elect the pope until more than one thousand years 
after the death of Christ. The fact that many popes came and went 
in the first ten centuries proves that the authority to elect or appoint 
them must have been vested in different hands during that time. 
This in turn proves, that if a God had anything to do with the elec- 
tion of popes, he changed his method once at least, which is surely 
an odd thing for a God, as described to us, to do. Before the clos- 
ing of this talk, I shall have more to say regarding the method of 
electing popes. 

Marriage was made a sacrament by Pope Eugenius and the 
Council of Florence in 1139. Here we see that for more than eleven 
hundred years, the Catholic church, in spite of its infallible popes, 
apparently at least did not know that marriage, which, according 
to the teachings of the Catholic church today, is a most holy sac- 
rament, was anything more than a contract entered into between 
a male and female member of the human race. The Catholic church 
not only teaches that marriage is a holy sacrament instituted by 
God, but she also asserts that this sacrament is only then lawful in 
the eyes of God when administered by a member of the Catholic 
priesthood. Do you realize, Catholic reader, what an assertion of 
that kind means? If the information conveyed therein is correct, 

169 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

it means that every man and woman the world over, Catholics in- 
cluded, who were joined in wedlock through any other agency than 
that of the Catholic clergy are really not married at all, that they 
live in open adultery, or, in other words, that the parents are pros- 
titutes, and the children are bastards. And if what they claim is 
not correct, it is an insult to hundreds of millions of human beings 
and one of the most contemptible utterances any body of men can 
be guilty of; and the government officials of all countries should 
forbid such teaching, no matter who the party or parties might be 
who propagate such a doctrine. 

If marriage really is a holy sacrament since the beginning of 
the twelfth century, it must surely have been one during the pre- 
ceding eleven centuries. Then I ask you, Catholic readers, can any 
of you who are over eighteen years of age and gifted with a normal 
intellect believe that a God, as described to us, would have per- 
mitted such an important fact to be kept from his direct representa- 
tives for Over eleven hundred years, especially so when this sac- 
rament could only be lawfully administered by a successor of the 
apostles? For what must have become of the millions of men and 
women who lived in unlawful wedlock and died with that mortal sin 
on their soul? My Catholic friends, you may rest assured that if 
a God, as described to us, were really in existence, and Christ's 
mission on earth had really been what the Catholic church teaches 
us it was, this God would undoubtedly have made an important fact 
of that kind known to everyone of his apostles and to everyone of 
their socalled successors and would not have left them in the dark 
in that respect for over eleven hundred years. Think this over, 
Catholic reader, and see if you do not come to the same conclusion. 

The true facts of the matter are these : When the human race 
as such was still in a very primitive state, they recognized the fact 
that a woman in the last stage of pregnancy and for some time after 
childbirth is generally not able to provide for herself and those de- 
pending on her. They also realized that it would be advisable to 
have a method through which the father of every offspring would 
be known as well as the mother and to make him take care of both 
mother and child at least while they are not able to take care of 
themselves. The result of this was a rule laid down that each couple 
who wished to live together as man and wife must make a declara- 
tion to that effect before witnesses; and to make it more attractive, 
some kind of a ceremony was adopted for the occasion. Thus 
marriage in a crude form had been instituted. In the same degree 
that the human race progressed intellectually, the wording of the 
marriage contract as well as the ceremony were undoubtedly im- 
proved upon. For instance, the ring that the women then as a 
symbol of subserviency carried in her nose she now wears on her 
finger. But no matter how big a change for the good in some re- 

170 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

spects might have taken place, in one respect it has remained the 
same. Marriage is today as it was then, nothing more or less than 
an agreement or contract between a male and female member of 
the human race to live together as man and wife. That marriage 
is really that and nothing else, even in the opinion of the orthodox 
Roman Catholic church, no matter what the leaders of the church 
may say to the contrary, I shall prove to you very conclusively in 
a few words. 

You know, Catholic reader, that baptism, penance, and extreme 
unction are considered sacraments of the church. You also know 
that either one of them can be legally administered without the full 
consent of the one receiving the same, yes, even without being 
conscious of the fact that the sacrament is administered to him. 
Now let us see whether the same holds good when the supposed sac- 
rament of matrimony is administered. Let us take if for granted 
that the pope personally or some high church official in his stead 
is in the act of joining two in holy wedlock. After a part of the 
ceremony has been gone through, he will ask the man whether he 
is willing to take the woman he is about to marry as his lawfully 
wedded wife. He also asks the women whether she is willing to 
take the man as her lawfully wedded husband. If only one of the 
two contracting parties says no to that question, the socalled sac- 
rament of marriage cannot be administered and that in spite of the 
fact, Catholic reader, that the pope or supposedly direct representa- 
tive of Christ on earth is the one who is in the act of administering 
the sacrament and has already performed part of the ceremony. 
This, then, proves that while the lowest priest of the Catholic church 
can administer the socalled sacrament of baptism, penance, and ex- 
treme unction to any amount of people without their full consent 
or knowledge, the head of the church, the supposed vicar of Christ, 
is powerless to administer the sacrament of matrimony without 
receiving the full consent of both contracting parties. Any deal 
or arrangements where the consent of two or more parties is neces- 
sary to bring it to a close is a contract. The fact that this is so in 
the case of the supposed sacrament called marriage, stamps the 
same a contract between two parties. You must remember, Catholic 
reader, that neither of the contracting parties is asked if they 
wish to be married, but whether each is willing to accept the other 
as his or her partner in the proposed undertaking which is about 
to take place, which, I repeat again, stamps marriage nothing more 
or less than a contract. No, Catholic reader, I am not advocat- 
ing free love. And to not let any of your clergy, high or low, tell 
you that is my intention, for nothing is further from the truth. 
I believe in order and decency of the highest type ; I believe in and 
advocate progress, not retrogression ; I do not wish to lessen the 
respect that matrimony is held in today, but on the contrary my 

171 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

endeavor is to heighten that respect and stop, if possible, the lying 
and grafting that is done in its name. Ceremonies and rituals, no 
matter how grand and awe-inspiring they may be, serve no other 
purpose than to make a show and create more interest in the thing 
they are added to. If you join an organization of any kind, your 
willingness to join and their willingness to take you in, is required 
to make you a member, all rituals and ceremonies are side issues. 
I hope, Catholic reader, that the evidence produced here is sufficient 
to convince you that the Catholic clergy from the pope down are not 
telling you the truth when they say that marriage is a sacrament 
which is only lawful in the eyes of God when administered by a 
member of the Catholic priesthood. 

• For proof that the church teaches that very thing, let me recite 
to you word for word the answer, which, according to a western 
weekly, was given by the priest editor in the question and answer 
column in the May 16, 1913 issue of a Roman Catholic paper, called 
"The Western Catholic" : If you have married out of the church 
since April 19, 1908, your marriage is certainly invalid; you are 
simply living in sin ; you are not married at all, and this is the case 
whether your partner be a Catholic or a Protestant." Also read 
the following : "A civil marriage is only licensed cohabitation. There 
should be no such legal abomination and the church should be 
supreme judge of the marriage relation." — Western Watchman, 
March 28, 1912. Also read this one from the best authority obtain- 
able: "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before 
a parish priest." — Pope Pius X, August 2, 1907. Is that clear 
enough, Catholic reader? These are authorities that can be relied 
upon, especially the last named, and I could give dozens of others 
which tell the same tale. By the way, Catholic reader, did you 
notice that this priest editor in his answer uses the word partner, 
and the pope the word contracted, and thereby acknowledge that 
marriage is a partnership? To give you an idea, Catholic reader, 
what amount of harm this false, and contemtible teaching is doing 
and to prove to you that even the prelates of the Catholic church 
consider it a farce, I will mention here three cases as they are re- 
ported in the daily press. A New York newspaper of Oct. 19, 1909 
reports that one Father Travasos, a Roman Catholic priest of New 
Bedford, Mass., has been sued for damages by a husband for caus- 
ing his wife to desert him by telling her in the confessional that, 
since she had not been married to her husband by a Catholic priest, 
she is not married at all and consequently living in adultery. The 
priest did not deny having done as charged, and was ordered to pay 
One Hundred Dollars damages. During the trial, the attorney for 
the priest objected to the wife telling in court what the priest had 
said to her on the principle that the words were spoken in the con- 
fessional, and that such conversations are privileged. This is un- 

172 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

doubtedly only one case out of many of that kind which happen 
every year. How is that, Catholic reader, for disrupting the family? 
It also shows you what the confessional is used for! But these 
selfstyled rulers of everything on earth, known as the Roman Cath- 
olic priesthood, were not satisfied with this rebuke. The same 
newspaper in its edition of March 17, 1910, informs us that a bill has 
been introduced into the Massachusetts legislature whereby the utter- 
ances of a priest in the confessional are to be excluded from the 
witness stand, and are to be treated as inviolable or absolute secrets. 
How is that for boldness and thirst for special privileges on the part 
of the Catholic priesthood? Do you know, Catholic reader, what a 
law of that kind would mean? It would mean that, if a priest of 
the Catholic church would use the confessional to inflame a relig- 
ious fanatic to commit any crime, even murder, the one so inflamed 
would not be permitted to testify to that fact in court, and conse- 
quently, the real criminal, the one who used the fanatic as a tool, 
could not even be accused, much less convicted and punished. Would 
this not be a fine state of affairs, Catholic reader? But that is the 
privilege these men, who call themselves your spiritual advisors, 
are asking for themselves and themselves alone. Their howl of pro- 
test would be heard all over the land if any non-Catholic creed or 
organization would dare to introduce such a bill for the benefit of 
non-Catholics. Think this over, Catholic reader, and see if you can 
endorse such tactics on the part of your clergy. Another New York 
daily informs us in its issue on July 24, 1914, that in Haverstraw, 
N. Y., a Roman Catholic shot to death a Protestant young man who 
had six days before married his daughter. This young man had 
gone to his father-in-law to ask his blessing, and, according to the 
newspaper account, the murderer did not shoot until he was told 
that a Protestant minister had performed the marriage ceremony. 
My Catholic friends, these cases are not isolated ones by any means. 
These are a few instances which show the harm this teaching is likely 
to do and really does. 

Now let me show you what a farce this doctrine is, even in 
the opinion of those who teach it. I have before me another New 
York daily of Sept. 26, 1913, which informs us that one Rev. Father 
Hugh L. McMennamie, while speaking for Bishop Matz of the 
Denver, Colo. Diocese said the following: "The marriage ban has 
been lifted for unattractive girls who are twenty-five years old and 
seem to have their first and last chance to be married." In explain- 
ing the new marriage rule, the priest is reported to have said: 
"Special dispensations will be granted to these girls for marriage 
outside the faith. This, however, only applies to unattractive girls 
who are having their last chance. If others tell us they will be 
married by a justice of the peace or a Protestant minister if we do 
not give them dispensation, we will tell them to go to the devil, for 

173 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

that is where they are headed for anyhow." What do you think of 
that, Catholic reader? Here we have a Roman Catholic bishop, a 
prelate of the church, who uses one of his subordinate priests as a 
mouthpiece to tell the world that the infallible Roman Catholic church 
will permit unattractive or homely girls of twenty-five years and 
over, who have a chance to marry a man, who will not go to a 
Catholic priest to be welted into wedlock, to be married by a Prot- 
estant minister or even a justice of the peace. In other words, the 
Catholic church, according to its own teaching, will permit unattrac- 
tive or homely girls who have not found a husband at the age of 
twenty-five or over to live with a non-Catholic man in adultery. 
Just think of it, Catholic reader, for all girls under twenty-five 
years and for attractive girls at any age, it is a great sin to live with 
any man to whom she has not been married by a Catholic priest, 
but for an unattractive girl over twenty-five years of age, it is not 
a sin, or, if it is, the committing of the sin is permitted by the church. 
Do you see, Catholic reader, what a farce that teaching is? Do 
you see how much the priests themselves believe in what they preach 
in regard to marriage? Is it possible for you, Catholic reader, to 
believe that, if a God, as described to us, were really in existence, 
that he would consider a certain act when committed by good-look- 
ing girls a sin, and by homely girls not? Think this over, it is well 
worth your while. My Catholic friends, if a God, as described to us, 
is in existence, marriage by any other than a Catholic priest is 
either not a sin at all or it is a sin for all, attractive or not attrac- 
tive, and no one knows that better than the priests themselves. 
This is simply another link in the chain of evidence to prove that 
the clergy do not believe what they preach to others. I have evi- 
dence in my possession that will prove beyond a doubt that the 
Catholic priesthood, as a body, not only do not believe what they 
teach in regard to matrimony, but that they have very little or no 
respect for that supposedly holy sacrament. The above does not 
include every individual priest. 

Marriage, Catholic reader, is nothing more or less than an 
agreement between a man and a woman to live with each other as 
man and wife. The license, registration, witnesses, and certificate 
are only means to make it possible, if necessary, to identify and 
to place the responsibility where it belongs. Over marriage, as 
over other contracts entered into by two or more parties, the civil 
law has authority and anyone empowered by the Civil Law can 
join a man and women in lawful wedlock, no matter what lying 
clergyman of the Catholic church may say to the contrary. 

The Roman Catholic church also teaches that the pope or supreme 
head of the church is the sole legal ruler of the world in civil as 
well as spiritual matters; that all civil rulers, such as kings, presi- 
dents, and so forth, and all laws enacted by civil authorities are 

174 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

subordinate to him ; and that he was placed into this high position 
by God himself. Let us pause here for a moment, Catholic reader, 
and listen to this bit of history from "The Dictionary of Miracles" 
by Rev. Cobham Brewer L. L. D. "Pope Hildebrand, who reigned 
from 1073-85, was the first pope who wore a royal crown with this 
legend inscribed thereon "Corona Regni de Manu dei." Pope Boni- 
face VIII, who reigned from 1294 to 1303, added a second crown 
with the legend "Diadema imperu de Mana Petry." Pope John 
XXII in 1314 added a third crown to indicate that the pope is 
supreme in spiritual, in temporal, and in ecclesiastical power both 
over the church militant and the church triumphant. This, Catholic 
reader, is how the pope or head of the Roman Catholic church 
became the supposed lord and master of everybody and everything 
in this world, in the same identical way that the brigands of old 
became kings and princes of today, namely, by simply usurping 
that power, in other words, by bestowing it upon themselves. The 
facts mentioned herein, Catholic reader, as to how the popes or 
vicars of Christ received that supposedly supreme power are true 
facts and like many others recorded in history as such. They can- 
not be successfully denied by anyone, be he priest or layman of high 
or low degree. When you go over the evidence presented here 
carefully and note the dates given, you will find: First, that Pope 
Hildebrand was the first pope of the many who occupied the papal 
chair during nearly eleven hundred years, who considered it right 
and proper for the direct representative of that lowly Christ to 
wear a royal crown signifying royal power; second, that two 
other popes or vicars of Christ each added another crown to the 
one already in use, making it a double and later a triple crown, each 
addition signifying greater temporal, as well as spiritual power, third, 
you will discover that two hundred and nine years elapsed until the 
second crown was added to the first one, and again eleven years 
until the third crown was added. Now, Catholic reader, these are 
important points and deserve due consideration. Let us review 
them, therefore, as thoroughly as possible. If we take it for granted 
that on an average each pope occupied the papal chair for twenty 
years, and that St. Peter was the first pope, fifty-seven popes came 
and went before this great God made it known to one of them that 
He had given them special power and wanted them to wear a royal 
crown to signify that fact. Then eleven popes came and went before 
God made it known to one of them that He had increased that power, 
and that He wanted them to wear a double crown, and then God 
waited until the next pope was eleven years in office before He made 
it known to him that He had further increased the power of the 
vicar of Christ, and that He wanted him to wear a triple crown as 
a symbol of authority. Does it not seem strange to you, Catholic 
reader, that if a God, as described to us, is really in existence, and 

175 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

that if this God wanted His direct representative on earth to 
be the sole and highest authority over all and everything on this 
earth and to wear a triple royal crown to signify that fact, that 
such a God should bestow that power on the installment plan, wait- 
ing nearly eleven hundred years with the first installment, two 
hundred and nine years before delivering the second, and eleven 
years more before delivering the third and last installment? 

No, Catholic reader, no God, as described to us, would be guilty 
of such conduct. The members of the priesthood had become so 
rule-mad through their sudden rise to power that they actually 
presumed that no human being had a right to breathe without 
their consent, and since then they have put that thought into prac- 
tise when and wherever possible. Should any Catholic reader be 
in doubt as to whether the pope and the Catholic church claim to 
be the rulers of the world, let them read this from an Encyclical 
of Dec. 8, 1864 by Pope Pius IX. "The people are not the source 
of civil power." "The church has a right to exercise its authority 
without having any limit set to it by the civil power." "The church 
has a right to avail itself of force, and to use the temporal power 
for that purpose." "The pope and priests ought to have dominion 
over temporal affairs." According to a western weekly, Cardinal 
Manning in 1873 speaking in the name of the pope said : "I acknowl- 
edge no civil power; I am the subject of no prince, and I claim 
more than this. I claim to be the supreme judge and director of 
the consciences of men ; I am sole, last supreme judge of what is 
right or wrong." The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic church 
says : "We declare, say, define, and pronounce it to be necessary 
to salvation, that every human creature should be subject to the 
Roman Pontiff." Is that plain enough, Catholic reader. Read them 
over again, and consider what these words imply. 

The mere fact that a follower and supposedly direct representa- 
tive of that humble and lowly Christ who washed the feet of his 
apostles to show his own and to teach others humility, is willing to 
wear even a single crown of gold studded with diamonds and rubies, 
should prove to anyone with an ounce of common sense, that the 
pope is not by far what he wants his followers to think he is. Can 
you believe, Catholic reader, that the same Christ who wore the crown 
of thorns wants his direct representative on earth to wear a triple 
crown of gold studded with diamonds? Think this over, Catholic 
reader, and then draw your own conclusion. 

The Rev. Cobham Brewer, L.L.D., further informs us that holy 
bread was instituted by the Council of Nantes in 655. Transubstan- 
tiation or the doctrine that after consecration by a Catholic priest, 
the piece of unsalted bread, called the host, and the wine used are 
converted into the actual body and blood of Christ declared a tenet 
of the church by the second Council of Nice in the year 787; belief 

176 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

in the divinity of Christ was first insisted upon in the fourth century; 
the immaculate conception was made a dogma of the church by Pius 
IX in 1854. 

My reason for giving the names and dates of four incidents in 
the history of the Catholic church instead of taking them up separately 
is that they are so closely related to each other that it is practically 
impossible for one to stand without the other. Incident No. one 
discloses to us the fact that holy bread or the Lord's supper was 
instituted by the Council of Nantes in 655. No. two inform us that 
in 7S7 or 132 years later the second Council of Nice first declared that 
the bread and wine used as the elements in communion are, after 
consecration by a priest of the church, positively the real flesh and 
blood of Christ. According to this historic information, the Christian 
church as such did not celebrate the Lord's supper at all, until more 
than six hundred years after Christ's death, and that not until 132 
years later did the vicar of Christ, and, through him the church, 
apparently at least know that the priest of the church had the power 
to turn a wafer made of flour and water into the living body of Christ. 
This indicates that during these 132 years, holy bread so-called was 
not considered the body of Christ and only used to commemorate 
what is called the Lord's Supper. For how could the priests and the 
people do otherwise when they did not know any better. Today 
the Catholic church teaches that for every mentally sound Catholic 
over thirteen years of age, the partaking of the body of Christ in 
communion is absolutely necessary to salvation. If that is true 
now, was it not true before the year 787? If it was not true then, it 
shatters the claim of Christ's divinity very much. If, on the other 
hand, it was true then as now, what, Catholic reader, can be the reason 
that the supposedly infallible vicars of Christ did not know this im- 
portant fact? And what must have become of the souls of all those 
who died from the time of the death of Christ to 655 without any com- 
munion, and from 655 to 787 when the bread and wine taken in com- 
munion was nothing more than bread and wine? For surely, Catholic 
reader, the priests of the church did not change bread and wine into 
the body and blood of Christ through consecration, when even the 
head of the church was not aware of the fact that any human being 
had power to do such a thing. You may feel assured, Catholic reader, 
that, if what the church today teaches in that respect were true, the 
first apostles of Christ would have known of it, and consecration 
would have taken place from the very beginning. For a God, as 
described to us, could not and would not be guilty of such gross neg- 
lect. In answer to this seeming puzzle, I must say again that in this 
case, as in others, God had no hand. Like others it is an invention of 
an unscrupulous priesthood to further their own material interest. 
Read the above carefully, Catholic reader, then think a little and see 
if you do not come to the same conclusion. In No. three we find that 

177 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

not until the fourth century or three hundred years after his birth 
did the church as such, through her infallible head, realize that Christ 
was of divine origin or, in other words, not a mere man, but a God. 
This was surely a late day to discover the most important fact of all, 
the very foundation on which the church rests. Just think of it, 
Catholic reader, God waited apparently at least over three hundred 
years before he made such an important fact known to one of his sup- 
posed representatives on earth and through him to the supposedly in- 
fallible church. In No. four we find that the immaculate conception or, 
in other words, the doctrine that Mary, the mother of God, was con- 
ceived by the Holy Ghost was made a dogma of the church by Pius 
IX in 1854. Here we see that, while this supposed God made the 
divinity of Christ known to his direct representatives on earth in 
the fourth century, he did not inform them of the fact that Mary, the 
human mother of Christ, had become pregnant with the Christ-child 
through the Holy Ghost until the nineteenth century or fifteen hun- 
dred years later. 

Now, Catholic friends, according to the teaching of the Roman 
Catholic church, the conception of the divine Christ could not have 
taken place in any other way than we are told it did, and he could not 
be divine had he been conceived in the ordinary way, which makes 
these two facts inseparable. But in spite of this, we find that fully 
fifteen hundred years elapsed between making the two facts known to 
the leaders of the church. Again I must ask, does it not seem strange 
to you, Catholic reader, that two such important and closely related 
facts should not become known to the vicars of Christ at one and the 
same time? 

When we look over the four different dates when the aforesaid 
facts apparently became known to the supposedly infallible head of 
the church, and when we consider the great importance the church 
today attaches to them, especially the last three, there is surely a 
puzzle before us. Just think of it, Catholic reader, while the church 
recognized the divinity of Christ in the fourth century, she did not see 
fit to commemorate His last supper with even plain bread and wine 
until three hundred years later, and not until another 132 years had 
passed did the supposedly one and only true church know that her 
priest could change the plain bread and wine into the actual flesh and 
blood of Christ, and not until nearly eleven hundred years after that 
did the infallible popes or vicars of Christ know that Mary, the 
mother of Christ, had become pregnant with the Christ-child through 
the influence of the Holy Ghost and not in the ordinary way, and that 
she was after, as before, a virgin. 

This is a puzzle, Catholic reader, especially when we consider 
that we are supposed to be dealing with the Creator and supreme 
Head of the universe on the one hand, and his direct and infallible 
representatives on the other. But that is not all, Catholic reader. 

178 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

Listen to this : The adoration of the host was imposed or made a 
law of the church by the fourth Lateran Council in the year one 
thousand. For the benefit of those who may not know, I will say 
that the adoration of the host means that the bread wafer, which is 
called host, after it is supposed to have become the living body of 
Christ through consecration by a Catholic priest, must be recog- 
nized as such and adored or honored as is due to the living divine 
Christ. Here then, Catholic reader, we see, that while the popes or 
vicars of Christ discovered in 787 that the priests of the church pos- 
sess the power to turn the wafer or host into Christ himself, these 
holy and learned men did not recognize until the year one thousand 
or 213 years later, that Christ deserved adoration or divine honor in 
that form as well as in any other. The true historic evidence pre- 
sented should convince you, Catholic reader, that the Catholic church 
through its leaders is not telling you the truth. 

The evidence so far produced shows that the principal and funda- 
mental doctrines of the church were adopted at different times be- 
tween the third and nineteenth century, which, in turn, proves that 
the church is not of godly origin, but has developed into what it is 
to-day, just like any other man-made institution. Before leaving this 
subject, let me give you a list of a few minor or less important sacra- 
ments, rites, and usages that were adopted as part and parcel of the 
Catholic, especially the Roman Catholic religion, after the third cen- 
tury: Rogation or Litany Day was established by Pope Leo III in 
801; extreme unction was instituted by Pope Felix between 525-30; 
firts bells were placed in churches between 400-500; first Ash Wednes- 
day was celebrated under Pope Felix III, 487; Advent Sunday was 
appointed in 1000, All Soul's day in 998; the Angelus Prayer was 
instituted by Pope Urban in 1095 ; kissing the Pope's toe was intro- 
duced in 708; threats of excommunication were first introduced in 
1181 ; the first festivals of St. John, St. Paul, St. Peter were celebrated 
in the fourth century; prayers for souls in purgatory were enjoined 
in 1000; and many others too numerous to mention were instituted 
at different times. Look at the dates, Catholic reader, and then con- 
sider the importance attached to them, especially the last one men- 
tioned, by the Catholic church to-day; then do a little thinking of 
your own, and see if your opinion of the so-called one and only true 
church and its so-called infallible vicars of Christ has not changed a 
little. Here, Catholic reader, recall the fact that the place called 
purgatory was established by Pope Gregory in 593, and link this with 
the fact that prayers for souls in purgatory were enjoined or pro- 
claimed necessary in 1000 or nearly 400 years later. This bit of his- 
toric evidence indicates very strongly that for four hundred years 
after purgatory had been proclaimed into existence, the Roman Hier- 
archy had not the nerve to tell their followers that it was necessary 
to have masses read to release the souls of their loved ones from 

179 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

purgatory. Here it would be well to ask yourself this question : If 
it is so necessary to-day to have masses read for the souls in purga- 
tory, why was it not considered necessary by the church authorities 
for the four hundred years mentioned herein. The answer to the 
question, dear reader, is that the Catholic religion, like all other relig- 
ions, is from beginning to end an invention and a fraud. 

While it is possible, in spite of my untiring search for the truth 
that some of the dates given above may not be exactly correct, I can 
assure you, Catholic reader, that the facts mentioned are positively 
the truth, and I challenge any apologist of the Catholic church from 
the pope down to prove even one of the sacraments, laws, and rites of 
the Catholic church to have come into being through any other than 
human agencies. So much, then, for when, how, and why many of 
the principal, as well as the less important doctrines, rites, and usages 
of the Catholic church came into being. 

Let us next, Catholic reader, endeavor to discover to what use 
the so-called sacraments, rites, and usages were put, and what the 
conduct of the Catholic church in general and that of the priesthood 
in particular have been from about the fourth century to the present 
day. We will begin with the election of popes. In my school days, 
the priest told us that the pope or supposed vicar of Christ is elected 
in the following manner: The cardinals of the church assemble in 
Rome for that purpose. After prayer by the whole assembly, each 
cardinal retires to a separate room, specially provided, where he fasts 
and prays for twenty-four hours, imploring the Holy Ghost to en- 
lighten him as to which of the cardinals would be the best to fill the 
important position of supreme head of the church. At the end of 
the twenty-four hours, all the cardinals emerge from their retirement, 
partake of some nourishment, assemble again, and elect a new pope. 
Now, Catholic reader, this sounds very good, and if everything would 
take place as told to us, we could not help but acknowledge that the 
methods employed fit the occasion. Let us see then, Catholic friends, 
whether that is the way popes are elected. Several historians, and 
devout Catholics among them, tell us of many instances where it 
required several weeks before the cardinals succeeded in electing a 
pope. That an event of this kind requires several weeks or even 
several days indicates very strongly that the time is taken up by dis- 
cussion, by casting ballot after ballot, or both. This then proves 
one of three things. It proves either that the Holy Ghost in his capacity 
as supreme Advisor does not advise the cardinals all alike ; or that 
at least a majority of the cardinals do not obey the dictates of the 
Holy Ghost; or that no Holy Ghost or any other godly Personality 
has anything to do with the election of popes, and that the actions 
of the cardinals in the position of electors are guided by the same 
or similar motives as other human beings when placed in a similar 
position. Think this over, dear reader, and you will be convinced 

180 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

that it positively proves one of these three facts, and the last men- 
tioned is the most likely. For surely, Catholic reader, the Holy 
Trinity, if there be such, and really takes a hand in the election of 
popes, through its medium, the Holy Ghost, would not select more 
than one for that position. If that is so, and if the cardinals did as 
told by the Supreme Advisor, He, the Holy Ghost, must have played 
a trick on them by advising a majority of them wrongly, or, if, on 
the other hand, the Holy Ghost acted honestly and instructed them 
all to vote for one man, a majority of the cardinals proved themselves 
disloyal to their sworn duty toward God and the church. But if 
neither of these superstitions are correct, the third one must be cor- 
rect, namely, that no God has anything to do with the election of 
popes. 

There are at least two other facts which indicate very strongly 
that the most important affairs of the Catholics, especially the Roman 
Catholic church are not conducted under the guidance of any God. 
Let us see. Up to the year 1911, the College of Cardinals, which 
then consisted of sixty-five members, had thirty-seven cardinals of 
Italian nationality against twenty-eight of all the other nationalities 
combined. Since the last cardinals were named, it stands thirty-four 
Italians against thirty-two of all other nationalities combined. Just 
think of it, Roman Catholic reader, the church has a membership of 
nearly 250,000,000 ; Italy has a population of about 50,000,000. Now 
if everyone of them is a good Roman Catholic, it constitutes one-fifth 
of the entire church membership, and that one-fifth membership had 
in 1911 a majority of nineteen in the College of Cardinals, and has 
even to-day after twenty-two new cardinals have been appointed two 
more representatives in that legislative body than the other four- 
fifths of the membership combined. Now, Roman Catholic reader, 
when we consider that the pope with his consistory appoints the 
cardinals, and that the Holy Ghost is supposed to direct every act 
the pope does in the interest of the church, we are forced to come to 
the conclusion that the Holy Ghost favors the Italians above all 
other nationalities, in fact, that He, the Holy Ghost, has for some time 
past been afraid to place the management of the church in the hands 
of any but Italians. For, since Pope Adrian VI died in 1523, or for 
nearly 400 years, there have been none but Italians in the papal 
chair. Do you still believe, Catholic reader, that a just God super- 
vises the election of popes? 

I am not speaking thus because of any dislike for the Italians 
as managers of church affairs or otherwise, on the contrary, I will 
say that the Italians have proven themselves well able to conduct 
the affairs of the Roman Catholic church. My purpose in bringing 
this fact to light is a far different one. Does it not seem strange, 
Catholic reader, that a just God, should grant a smaller represen- 
tation to four-fifths of the membership of the church than he does 

181 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

to one-fifth, or that he should favor for hundreds of years one nation- 
ality against all the others combined? That is, if God, as described 
to us, is really in existence and takes any part in the election of 
popes, and the appointing of cardinals. Did you also know, Catholic 
reader, that many who had been elected pope never rilled the papal 
chair, because of objections made for one reason or another by 
certain privileged people? This very thing happened when the late 
Pope Pius X was elected. Cardinal Rampolli, who died only lately, 
had been elected pope with twenty-nine against twenty-one votes, 
but he was objected to by influential people, was rejected, and one 
Cardinal Sarto, later Pius X, was elected in his stead. The Catholic 
monarches of Europe are said to be the people who have a right to 
object to men elected as popes, who for one reason or another do 
not suit them. If this is true, Catholic reader, and it positively is, 
it proves that the Holy Ghost, while He might take a hand in the 
election of popes, has not by any means the deciding influence. If 
that means anything, it means that after a God has decided that a 
certain man should be the head of the church He established, mere 
human beings can step in and make that decision null and void. 
That fact shatters the claim of God's mightiness and the pope's 
infallibility. You may feel assured, Catholic reader, that, if an al- 
mighty and alwise God were in existence, and had anything to do 
with the election of popes and appointing of cardinals, He would 
not favor one nationality and one-fifth of the membership against 
all the other members and nationalities combined ; and if He selected 
a certain person to be the head of his church, all the human beings 
the world over could not cause another to take his place. In order 
that you may know the true facts of the case, let me remind you 
of this : When a certain political party in city, state, or nation is in 
power, they make appointments and swing elections to keep them- 
selves in office. Now, Catholic reader, consider the fact that car- 
dinals and popes are just as human as the leaders of political parties. 
Think a little, and then form your own conclusion. 

Anyone who read one or more daily papers between the time 
that Pope Pius X died and the present Pope Benedict XV was elected 
had ample opportunity to learn from the lips and pens of the car- 
dinals themselves and other high church officials how popes are 
elected and how much a Holy Ghost or God has to do with such 
elections. First it was predicted that one of the American cardinals 
would be elected pope. A few days after this prediction, even the 
American cardinals, or at least two of them, as well as other people 
of note, predicted that the next pope would surely be an Italian. 
To substantiate this claim, the following reasons were advanced: 
A N. Y. daily of August 22, 1914, expresses it thus: "All pre- 
dictions are that the successor to Pius X will be an Italian. Those 
who make this prediction group the cardinals as follows : The seven 

182 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

from France, five from Spain, two each from England and Portu- 
gal, and one each from Ireland, Belgium, and Canada from a total 
of nineteen. The two Germans and six Austria-Hungarians make 
up another group of eight. The neutral zone is composed of three 
from America and one each from Brazil and Holland making five. 
Separately stand the bulk of the Italian cardinals numbering thirty- 
three." Is that anything different, Catholic reader, than when you 
read predictions as to whom a political convention will nominate 
for governor or president, or whom a state legislature will elect 
senator? Are those who do the voting not also grouped according 
to party lines or the dictates of material interests. The very fact 
that the cardinals themselves speak like ordinary politicans of groups 
and majorities should prove to anyone with an ounce of common 
sense that these supposed princes of the church know very well that 
no God or Holy Ghost has anything to do with the election of popes. 
Another N. Y. daily in its issue of August 27, 1914 informs us that 
it has been advised by special cablegram from Rome that to pre* 
vent the national grouping of cardinals and to check the election- 
eering now rampant in the Vatican, several aged cardinals have pro- 
posed to proceed with the election of the pope by the compromise 
system. The younger elements, backed by several of the foreign 
cardinals, object to the proposal. You see by this, Catholic reader, 
that grouping on national lines and electioneering is going on in 
the Vatican in an effort to elect a pope. This shows that the various 
sets of cardinals support different candidates. During an endeavor 
to elect a supposedly infallible representative of a God, we also hear 
of compromising, just as in any other body of politicians. My Cath- 
olic friends, is it possible for you to believe that electioneering and 
compromises would be necessary to elect a pope, if a God in the 
Personality of the Holy Ghost had anything whatever to do with the 
election of popes? Catholic reader, the pope is elected like any 
other human being who is elevated to a higher position. If that is so, 
what should make him infallible or the supreme ruler of the world, 
any more than any other human being elevated by those he repre- 
sents to a higher or the highest position in the same manner. You 
and I, Catholic reader, are just as infallible and just as much the 
rulers of everything on earth as that individual, called pope, and 
vice versa. Think this over, Catholic reader, do not permit those 
in whose interest it is to deceive you and who operate under the 
cloak of religion to lead you by the nose any longer. Many histor- 
ians, among whom are Roman Catholics, inform us that many popes 
or vicars of Christ were characters of the worst kind, that they com- 
mitted every conceivable crime, including murder. Four or five 
of them are said to have been so bad that even the Catholic church 
never mention their names. Some of the popes are accused of having 
had as many as nine concubines or plural wives, and at least one is 

183 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

accused of defiling his own daughter. Pope Leo X became pope 
when he was twelve years old. Many ten and twelve year old boys 
were made bishops and cardinals. I dare any member of the Catholic 
priesthood to deny the truth of the above. Form your own conclu- 
sion, Catholic reader, of the saintliness of these supposed representa- 
tives of God on earth. Can you believe, that a righteous God would 
have such men as His direct representatives on earth? It is also 
authoritively stated that many popes died an unnatural death. Think, 
Catholic reader, what that means. When Cardinal Rampolli died 
only a few months ago, there was a strong suspicion that he had 
been both robbed and poisoned. The very fact, Catholic reader, 
that suspicion of that kind arose shows that it is not considered 
impossible for such things to happen in the Vatican. 

The evidence so far presented must undoubtedly convince every 
adult Catholic with a normal intellect and honest enough to be con- 
vinced, that no God or Holy Ghost had or has anything to do with 
the appointment of cardinals or the election of popes, and that the 
individuals who sat in the papal chair were not all the good and 
holy men we are asked to believe they were. History also tells us 
of a few good popes who tried to do all the good they could while 
they lived, but that they generally did not live long. Think this 
over, Catholic reader, investigate what is not clear to you, and, 
above all, do your own thinking! It is well worth your while, for 
you have been kept long enough in ignorance of many very import- 
ant facts that you should know. 

Before we leave the subject of popes, let us take a peep into 
the inner sanctuary of the Vatican or the pope's residence, and see 
whether their actions in private life are more in accord with their 
teachings and pretentions. The Bible or socalled Holy Scripture 
tells us that Christ had not a place to lay his head, that he was very 
plain in dress and otherwise, and that he did not believe in amass- 
ing wordly riches. The popes claim to be the direct representatives 
of this very same Christ on earth, and profess to believe in and 
live according to this teaching. The Vatican or pope's residence 
is a four thousand room palace which in splendor equals any king's 
palace that was ever built. The pope's official wardrobe costs annu- 
ally Fifty Thousand Dollars in American money. The pope's state 
robes which he wears for priestly functions are ornamented with 
furs, laces, pearls, diamonds, and other precious stones. A news- 
paper correspondent of a N. Y. daily paper, who claims that he per- 
sonally visited the bedchamber of Pope Leo XIII, says that the furn- 
iture therein was all gold and silver plated and that everything that 
he saw was equal to that in any king's palace. The pope also has a 
very large and very expensive household. This consists of a large 
number of cardinals and other high church officials, servants, and 
a large military guard. 

184 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

A newspaper clipping before me from a N. Y. daily imparts to 
us the information that Pope Pius X sent Forty Million Dollars in 
U. S. money with the late J. P. Morgan to be invested in American 
industries, especially railroads. The same paper of September 6, 
1914, speaking of the finances of the Vatican, tells us that under 
Pius IX, enough money had been invested outside of Italy through 
a group of foreign bankers to yield annually a sum in excess of Two 
Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars to the Vatican treasury. 
The same paper of the same date also tells us that Pope Leo XIII, 
thinking that he could cultivate the favor of the Roman authorities, 
withdrew some of the money from foreign countries and deposited 
it in local banks. Then followed a bank failure and a large sum 
was lost. We are also told by the same paper that after this bank 
failure, Leo XIII held three jubilees which resulted in presents of 
great value, one estimate being Ten Million Dollars. This replen- 
ished the pope's treasury again. According to the same paper, when 
the private library of Pope Leo XIII was removed, One Million Four 
Hundred Thousand Dollars was found on the shelves, and that one 
Mgr. Morzolini presented the new pope with a sum of Six Million 
Four Hundred Thousand Dollars which he had saved. Just think 
of it, Catholic reader, One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars 
are found on a shelf in the library, another Six Million Four Hundred 
Thousand Dollars had been saved by a Vatican prelate, while mill- 
ions of the pope's dupes the world over could not find One Dollar 
and Forty cents on a shelf or anywhere else. This proves that the 
pope, that supposed vicar of Christ, is provided with cash as well 
as with luxuries. Catholic reader, think this over, and see if it is 
possible for you to believe that a man, who thus rolls in luxury and 
wealth, walks in the footsteps of that lowly Christ, as he claims he 
does, and that he can be a true representative of Christ on earth. 
Remember also what pope's jubilees are held for. 

The pope personally and the church as such teach that if the 
almighty and alwise God wills it, your strongest enemies cannot 
harm a hair on your head, and your strongest friends cannot save 
you from his wrath, though they be as numerous as the sand on 
the sea. Now let us see, Catholic reader, how the supposed vicar 
of Christ lives up to that teaching. Undoubtedly everyone of you 
have read in the daily papers that the pope of Rome has a 
regular police force and an army of regularly trained and modernly 
equipped soldiers continuously on duty in the Vatican. The 
question now arises : What use can a personality like him have 
for police and soldiers? Is he afraid of anyone or has the humble 
Christ become a militarist and ordered his vicar to keep an army? 
Which can it be? If the pope really believes what he personally 
teaches and causes to be taught, he, as the direct representative of 
God on earth, should surely not be afraid of any enemies, no matter 

185 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

how strong or how numerous they might be, and you may feel as- 
sured, Catholic reader, that if he believed what he preaches to others, 
he would not be afraid, his mind would be entirely at ease in that 
respect. He would console himself with the thought that if the good 
Lord wanted harm to come to him, it would come, no matter how he 
protected himself, and if he was to be spared, that nothing or no 
one in existence, including the elements of nature, could harm him 
in the least. What then can be the reason for the vicar of Christ 
keeping a well armed and drilled police force and army? 

The answer is this, Catholic reader: Actions speak louder than 
words. The fact that he keeps an armed force around him proves 
one of two things conclusively. He either has more confidence in 
the gun and bullet than in the God he professes to believe in; or he 
does not believe that a God of his own description is in existence 
at all ; or perhaps his watchword is : "Trust in God, but keep your 
powder dry." At any rate, he proves by his actions that he does 
not believe what he preaches to others. The pope may not believe 
that his dupes or even the priests should entertain modern ideas, 
but he does believe in his soldiers using modern rifles. This he has 
proven by equipping them with the latest pattern of rifles, less than 
three years ago. For the benefit of those Catholics, who may think 
that the pope has no militia, I shall repeat word for word a few 
lines from an article in a N. Y. daily paper of September 6, 1914, 
which describes the scenes during the coronation of Pope Benedict 
XV. "The Noble Guard, in new uniforms and bearing naked swords, 
attended His Holiness. The entire armed corps of the Holy See 
saluted the passage of the procession, which was formed in the 
pope's apartments, and then proceeded to the Pauline Chapel, where 
the adoration of the Holy Sacrament was celebrated." This sounds 
as if the Pope had soldiers, does it not, Catholic reader? 

In the same article, we are told that the cardinals kissed the 
Pope's hands and feet. Christ washed the feet of his apostles; his 
supposed direct representative has his subordinates kiss his feet. 
Christ wore a crown of thorns pressed in his flesh until the blood 
flowed; his supposed representative wears a triple crown of gold 
studded with diamonds and rubies. Christ had no place where to 
lay his head; his supposed vicar lives in a palace fit for the greatest 
king and has One and One Half Million Dollars to lay on the shelves 
of his library. What a contrast between Christ and his supposedly 
direct representative on earth. Consider this Catholic reader, and 
form your own conclusion. 

Almost on every occasion that a priest or prelate speaks or writes, 
he implores the young people to get married and beget children, de- 
nounces those who have not as many children, as, in their opinion, 
they should have, and claims that it is a sin to limit offspring. What 
right have people who openly shrink from the duties of parenthood, 

186 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

who boast that the unmarried life of the priest, monk, and nun is 
more pleasing to the Lord than the life of those who live in the married 
state, to urge, nay, command others to get married and populate 
the world? Let us have patience and look into this a little. In order 
that we may understand this rightly, let us suppose that of a family 
of four boys and four girls, three boys learn a trade or profession, 
while one studies for the priesthood or becomes a monk ; and three 
girls marry, while one decides to lock herself up in a convent for 
life, and become a nun, in other words, shrink from the duties of 
motherhood. Now, Catholic reader, if it is true that it is a sin in 
the eyes of God for three married sisters and brothers to even limit 
the production of human kind to a certain number, and that it is 
the will and command of God, that each male and female be as pro- 
ductive as possible, how then can the fruitless life of the one sister 
and brother, as well as that of hundreds of thousands of other 
priests, monks, and nuns, the world over, be pleasing to God? If, 
on the other hand, it is true that the maiden and bachelor, or fruit- 
less life of the nuns and priests is to God more pleasing than married 
life, how can it be a sin in the eyes of God for men and women to 
remain childless or limit their offspring to a certain number? This 
is indeed a contradiction, and surely a God, as described to us, would 
not contradict himself thus. You may feel assured, Catholic reader, 
that if a God, as described to us, were really in existence and had 
any preference or dislike for one mode of life or another, he would 
show such preference or dislike in an unmistakable way. Neither 
are the priests or nuns any holier than other men and women, and 
many of them are not one half as good morally, and in other respects 
as the majority of people outside of the convent or the priesthood. 
Why should they be, Catholic reader? They are made of the same 
kind of material, born in the same manner, and in thousands of cases 
of the same father and mother that laborers, mechanics, doctors, 
lawyers, and so forth, who are fathers and mothers of large families, 
were born of. Their idle and carefree life makes their temptations 
greater than that of the man and women with many cares. You may 
also feel assured, Catholic reader, that these supposedly holy men and 
women have after as before the same human feeling sexually as 
well as otherwise. They must eat, drink, sleep ; they must protect 
themselves against cold or heat, are just as liable to catch disease 
and must die like other people. Why then should they not be in 
other respects the same? If the new kind of dress they wear and 
the vow or oath they take do not make a change in them in every 
other respect, why should it make them more holy or remove their 
sexual desire. 

To make this still clearer, let us return for a moment to the 
sisters and brothers memtioned above. Here we have four young 
men and four young women all born from the same father and mother, 

187 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

all raised in the same house and surroundings, and in every respect 
alike. At a certain age one of the young men decides to become 
a priest, and one of the young women decides to become a nun. 
Each now takes a certain vow or oath and begins to wear different 
clothes than he or she did before, and we are asked to believe that 
this makes an entirely different person out of each. We are asked 
to believe that the change of clothes and the taking of an oath takes 
whatever sexual inclination he or she formerly possessed complete- 
ly away from each. Can you believe that, Catholic reader? I can 
produce positive proof that such is not the case. We are also asked 
to believe that a just God now looks with favor upon their celibate 
or unfruitful mode of life, while he condemns it if practised by their 
sisters and brothers who selected a different vocation from theirs. 
Can you believe, Catholic reader, that a God as described to us would 
hold such foolish notions? The priests and nuns, are not one iota 
different in even the smallest detail after they don the garb of the 
priest or nun than before. In fact, it may be truly said that, while 
it is true that there are good men and women among priests and 
nuns who are contented with the life they chose and try to live as 
good and useful a life as it is possible for them to do, it is, un- 
doubtedly, equally true that a great number of them are dissatisfied 
and would gladly desert their vocation if they had a free will in 
the matter, or they live a sinful life. I feel positively certain that 
if any of you, Catholic readers, especially those of you who almost 
worship the priests and nuns, could be made aware over night of 
the wrongdoing that is perpetrated directly or indirectly by such 
supposedly holy men and women as priests and nuns are said to be, 
your opinion of them would change greatly, and you would be one 
of the first to demand that unmarried priesthood and nunnery be 
abolished. 

I do not ask you to believe what I say in this respect, dear 
reader. On the contrary, I advise you to get first hand evidence 
by instituting yourself a detective and learn what your priest, high 
and low, do when they think themselves safe at home or away from 
home and out of reach of the prying eye of those who know them 
to be priests. If you do, Catholic reader, you will undoubtedly find 
that the writer of these lines has not over, but understated the 
facts. A western weekly of recent date reports that one Father 
Reviera, a priest, and until a short time ago connected with a Catholic 
church in Brooklyn, N. Y., is accused by a sixteen year old girl 
member of the church of contributing to her delinquency by taking 
her to a hotel in New York twice a week for a period of two years. 
The article also states that he decamped for other quarters when 
he found that the girl's parents had come to know of his wrong- 
doing. The same paper informs us that a nun, eight months in 
the state of pregnancy, who escaped from a convent in Camden, N. 

188 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

J., told of being assaulted by three priests, and that she does not 
know which one of them is the father of her unborn child. It also 
tells of another case where a Catholic priest confessed in the court 
of Allegheny, Pa., to being the father of the unborn child of a former 
servant of his. The same western weekly in its issue of Nov. 7, 1914 
brings us the news that on Oct. 21, one J. J. Mullen of Chicago, 111., 
a Roman Catholic priest who is attached to the holy Rosery Church 
of that city while away from home became beastly drunk and stabbed 
an inoffensive man to death. We are also informed that in this 
case as in other cases of this kind the church authorities are trying 
to make the public believe that Father Mullen is insane. Now, 
Catholic reader, if some honest person had followed Father Reviera 
of Brooklyn when he left the parish house and had seen him meeting 
this young girl on the ferry boat to New York, then undoubtedly 
entering a certain cafe with a roman collar and emerging there- 
from wearing a different one, then taking the girl to a certain hotel 
for a period of several hours, changing collars again, and arriving 
at the parish house the supposedly virtuous and holy man, he would 
in all probability not have been permitted to go through this per- 
formance twice a week for a period of two long years. If Father 
Schmidt's movements in his private life had been watched by some 
honest person, Anna Amuller might be alive today, and he not in 
the shadow of the electric chair. Had some honest parishioner of 
Father J. J. Mullen's of Chicago, watched his movements when 
away from the gaze of his parishioners, he would in all probability 
not be a murderer today. If the movements in private life of the priest 
who, confessed in the Court of Allegheny, Pa., to being the father of the 
unborn child of his former servant, and those of the three priests 
who are said to have assaulted the nun who is reported to have only re- 
cently escaped from a convent in Camden, N. J., had been watched 
by some honest person, perhaps neither the servant girl nor the nun 
would have had the experience they did have. When the last men- 
tioned incident was published, Bishop McFaul of Trention rushed 
into print in Catholic and non-Catholic papers denying that such a 
thing had happened to a nun while within convent walls, and 
threatened to bring suit for alleged libel. The paper which printed 
the news calmly bid Bishop McFaul to go ahead and bring all the 
suits he liked. After making a lot of noise, the worthy bishop ap- 
parently changed his mind about bringing suit for we hear nothing 
more of it. What can have changed his mind, Catholic reader? 
Think this over, for it is very important to know. If the story 
published about a nun becoming pregnant while in the convent and 
her escape to prevent her child when born from being put to death 
is a deliberate falsehood, it is the bishop's sworn duty to prove this 
to the world, and that would be a very easy thing to do. Why then 
does the bishop let that terrible stain rest on the sanctity of the 

189 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

convent and on the church as a whole. Because the story must be 
true. That is undoubtedly the reason why he did not bring suit. 
Can you think of any other reason, Catholic reader? These cases 
of both the priests and the nuns are only like a drop in a river toward 
what could be said in that respect. I personally know of a priest who, 
when leaving the city on a supposed errand for the church, would 
get on the train at one station and a nice young lady would join 
him at another station. I also personally know of a highly edu- 
cated priest who came less than two years ago from Austria to the 
United States, and was given charge of a parish. Less than six 
months after he took charge, he wrote a letter to his brother de- 
scribing the immoral conduct of his fellow priest when alone by 
themselves, and in less than a year he left the priesthood and the 
Catholic Church and went back home to marry the woman who 
had born him several children. This man was a priest for fifteen 
years, but became tired of living the life of a hypocrite, so he 
changed his occupation and gave to the children that were his, as 
well as to the woman who gave them life, the name that was right- 
fully theirs. He is only one of many who leave the church every 
year. I know of another priest who had three young sisters in his 
employ and in addition a robust girl to do the heavy work, and of 
still another who deeded to his hired girl a lot worth Eleven Hund- 
red Dollars ($1,100.00), while he refuses to pay a debt of Fifty 
Dollars he owes to a man with a large family who earned it honestly. 
Thousands of similar cases could be mentioned and proved. I leave 
it to you, Catholic reader, to draw your own conclusions. The 
fact that in 1912 over three hundred Catholic priests from all parts 
of the world met secretly near Rome, Italy, and advocated changes 
in the church rules of which the celibacy of the priesthood is one, 
shows that there is something wrong, that the priests know it, and 
that many of them are not satisfied with the present state of affairs, 
and are working to bring about the necessary changes. I could 
go on indefinitely and prove every case. Take my advice, Catholic 
reader, and constitute yourself a detective and get the evidence 
first hand. 

The finding of tunnels under and connecting a convent for men 
with one for women or with the church near the priest's residence 
should be considered evidence that everything is not as holy and 
lovely as we are told it is within these supposedly holy places called 
convents, where only virgins are said to reside. If you think they 
have no tunnels, read the following which is taken from a western 
weekly of May 23, 1914: "Febro Donato of Ipswich was held in 
Twelve Hundred Dollars bail for the grand jury, after pleading not 
guilty in the East Boston Court to a charge of breaking into the 
Convent and Church of the Sacred Heart in East Boston. Patrol- 
man McKendry arrested the man early today in the tunnel leading 

190 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

from the church to the convent." Evidence of that kind given in 
a court of law must surely be accepted as proof that at least one 
tunnel of that kind exists. You may be sure, Catholic reader, that 
if one convent and church are connected by a tunnel, more, if not 
all, of them are. I have before me a Canadian newspaper, dated 
March 25, 1913, which tells of a tunnel found in that country by 
working men while tearing down an old convent. The paper also 
states that this tunnel is thirty feet below the street level, runs to 
the river bank, and has smaller tunnels and small and large rooms 
connected therewith. What use can such a holy place as a convent 
is supposed to be, have for tunnels and rooms thirty feet under 
ground. Form your own conclusions Catholic reader, as to the use 
these tunnels, were in the past and are to this day put to. 

If the management of the Catholic church knows or even thinks 
that nothing wrong or unlawful is perpetrated within convent walls, 
why are they so bitter against laws being enacted for the inspection 
of convents and Houses of Good Shepards, as for all other public 
institutions? I ask again, why are they so bitter against inspection? 
In order that we may find an unmistable answer to this question, 
let us take if for granted that you, Catholic reader, were suspected 
of conducting a gambling place, a house of ill-fame, an unlicensed 
saloon, or any other unlawful business enterprise. Suspicion may 
be cast on the best of us through enemies or circumstances and 
is in itself nothing to be ashamed of. Now, Catholic reader, if you 
were innocent of the suspected crime, you would not feel worried 
at all, you would not only not try to prevent the authorities from 
entering your place for inspection, but you would invite them to 
come in and you would show them every nook and corner, for the 
inspection could only do you good, it would prove your inno- 
cence and put an end to the suspicion. If, on the other hand, you 
were really guilty of the crime suspected, and you knew that if the 
authorities made an investigation, they would find plenty of tell- 
tale evidence to prove you guilty, you would very naturally not 
only object to an inspection being made, but you would call it an 
outrage to even think of making such an investigation of your prem- 
iess, and you would fight with every method at your command to 
prevent the investigation from taking place. If that then is the way 
the guilty or the innocent would conduct themselves in a case of 
that kind, any fair-minded person must admit that the church au- 
thorities in fighting against the inspection of convents act the part 
of the one who knows that he is guilty. For if no telltale evidence 
of guilt can be found within the convent walls, an investigation can 
only be of benefit to both the convent and the church. You may 
also feel assured, Catholic reader, that if a Catholic bishop or card- 
inal were suspected of conducting, let us say, a gambling house, 
and if he were innocent of the crime, he would, just like you or I, 

191 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

smile at the suspicion cast upon him and invite the officials to come 
in and make a thorough investigation, yes, in all probabilty he would 
offer each one of the investigating officials a good cigar as a sign that 
he considered their intrusion, if we may call it such, more as a favor 
than an insult. Then why, Catholic reader, will that same bishop 
or cardinal make such a bitter fight against the inspection of con- 
vents and Catholic houses of detention? As an answer, let us re- 
member the proverb : "Actions speak louder than words." Their 
actions, Catholic reader, prove that they are afraid of having their 
convents and Houses of Good Shepherds investigated, which, in turn, 
points very strongly to a guilty conscience on their part. Think 
this over, Catholic reader. Those Catholics who have brothers or 
sisters as inmates in any of these Catholic institutions should give 
this matter their serious consideration. 

The fact that many boy and girl inmates risked and some 
actually lost their lives in an attempt to escape from convents or 
Houses of Good Shepherds strongly indicates that everything is not 
so lovely in these supposedly holy places as we are asked to believe 
it is. For additional evidence to that effect, read the following 
extracts which, according to a western weekly, appeared in the 
October 22, 1914 issue of "The Commercial Tribune" (Cincinnati, O.) : 

"Despondent because she longed for the companionship of her 
parents and relatives and because she was unable to be with them, 
pretty sixteen-year-old Marie Scheben, an inmate of the Home of 
Good Shepherd in Ft. Thomas, Ky., ended her life with poison at 
the institution yesterday morning. 

"When the physician arrived the girl was dead. Coroner Digby 
was notified and learned that the girl had been brooding over the 
fact that she was an inmate of the institution and was worried because 
she was unable to be at the home of her parents. How many other 
children are in these Institution who feel the same as this girl did? 
Let us help them." 

For proof, Catholic reader, that the Catholic church as such is 
bitterly opposed to inspection of convents, and intends to use more 
than persuasion to prevent such investigations from taking place 
in case the government would pass a law to that effect, read 
the following: "Those fossils of an intolerant age (Knights of 
Luther) never learn, so no doubt the Inspection of Convents bill 
will make its biennial squeak and die. In the meantime we might 
remind the Knights of Luther and their thickheaded friends that if 
such a breach of the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitu- 
tion should ever disgrace the statutes of Nebraska, there are men 
enough and guns enough in this good state to prevent' any nosing 
inspector or committee from polluting, with uninvited presence, the 
home sanctuaries of our Catholic sisterhoods." — The True Voice 
(Catholic), Omaha, Nebraska, July 31, 1914. "The True Voice" is 

192 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

an official Catholic newspaper and speaks with authority. This one 
statement alone, which is only one of many such, shows you, Cath- 
olic reader, that the Catholic church through its management is 
determined to prevent inspection and is ready to use force, if necess- 
ary. I wonder if that is the mission of the Knights of Columbus 
and other Catholic societies? The Catholic management must surely 
be afraid to let outsiders get a look at the inside of these supposed- 
ly holy institutions, or they would not talk so desperately. I am 
sure they would have no objection to letting a government inspector 
or committee inspect an ordinary Catholic church. Then why, I 
must ask again, are they so opposed to the inspection of convents 
and their house of detention? There must be a reason, Catholic 
reader. What can that reason be? All Catholics who have any 
relatives in any convent or House of Good Shepherd should insist 
that laws for the inspection of these institutions be passed, for then 
and only then can they learn whether those near and dear to 
them are treated as they should be. Think over this, Catholic 
reader, it is well worth your while for your nearest relative or closest 
friend might be one of the sufferers. 

While we have the subject of convents under discussion, I shall 
touch on one more phase in convent life which appears to me at 
least strongly suspicious. We know that in some orders, after a girl 
has taken the final or black veil, she is not permitted to see or speak 
to even her father or mother. I have not only read of cases, but 
personally know of parents who have a daughter in a convent, who 
told me that the nearest they could get to seeing and hearing their 
daugther was five or six feet from her with a curtain between them 
and one or two sisters listening to the conversation ; that they could 
not shake hands or see her face or figure, in fact, that they did not 
know whether they were talking to their daughter or to someone 
else, as they were not positive that the voice that spoke was that 
of their daughter. They were heart-broken to think that their child, 
although perhaps alive, was dead to them, and they, the parents, 
dead to her; and, in all probability, their daughter felt the same. 
I have just as reliable evidence that in convents and Houses of 
Good Shepherds where the inmates are permitted to see those who 
come to visit them, that they are only permitted to converse with 
one another in the presence of one or two nuns. Also that all 
letters sent and received are opened and read by the superior. Why 
is in a supposedly godly institution such inhumane treatment ac- 
corded to innocent human beings, and why such precaution, Cath- 
olic reader? This surely is not the will of a just and merciful God. 
The death house in a prison is the only place where the prisoner 
cannot kiss or shake hands with those who visit him, but they can 
see each other ; and in every other part of a prison or penal institu- 
tion this privilege is granted to the prisoners. Futhermore, they 

193 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

are for a reasonable length of time permitted to converse without 
being overheard. So you see, Catholic reader, that the prison accords 
its inmates, who are supposed to be dangerous people, more rights 
and liberties than these supposedly godly institutions do to their 
innocent inmates. I must here ask you again: Why are there such 
precautions? Why are inmates of a supposedly godly institution 
and their nearest relatives not permitted to converse privately either 
verbally or in writing? Again, Catholic reader, I remind you that 
actions speak louder than words. Their actions indicate very strongly 
that those in control are afraid that news of some kind, which they 
do not want the outside world to find out, might reach it. What 
news can it be, Catholic reader, that the management of an institu- 
tion of that kind, where supposedly pious virgins only are intrusted 
.with the managing of affairs, that these supposed-to-be holy women, 
-called sisters, do not want anyone outside to know? No sane adult 
person is afraid unless he or she has reasons to be afraid. To judge 
by their actions, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that 
they have very good reasons to be afraid. Again I ask what may 
(these reasons be? My Catholic friends, I have never been in a con- 
vent or House of Good Shepherd, and, therefore, have not seen 
any good or any wrong committed there, but from what I have 
heard from people who have been there and judging by the actions 
of those in power in church affairs, I am satisfied that, if the Catholics 
the world over, especially those whose relatives are inmates there, 
knew what is to this day done behind these convent walls, they would 
not only demand that convents be investigated, but that they be 
entirely abolished. Yes, Catholic readers, I feel equally certain 
that, if a government commission of honest men and women, ready 
to do their duty, was sent to every convent the world over without 
giving those in charge time to remove telltale evidence if there 
be any, that a large number of criminal indictments would un- 
doubtedly be the result of such investigations. The Catholic sisters 
in and out of convents are not all the innocent and loving creatures 
many people think they are. I personally have seen a number of 
these supposedly saintly women in the capacity of school teachers 
and hospital nurses acting like brutes and demons. If Catholic 
nuns in the capacities mentioned act in a cruel manner toward 
those intrusted to their care, it is only reasonable to conclude that 
many of those in convents will do likewise. Yes, Catholic reader, 
if the sworn testimony of people who were in convents and Catholic 
houses of detention can be believed mere children as well as older 
persons have within these places been treated most inhumanly by 
supposedly holy women called nuns. 

Convents were not thought of until three hundred years after 
Christ's death, and they are a relic of Paganism. 

My Catholic friends, do not mind your priest if he tells you that 

194 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

you must not speak or even think of such matters, for you will be his 
mental slave as long as you blindly obey his orders. You have a per- 
fect right, Catholic reader, to know whether what you are asked to be- 
lieve is the truth or not, and whether the affairs of the church and its 
allied institutions are conducted as they should be. Do not denounce 
those who ask for convent inspection laws, Catholic reader, no matter 
what their religious belief might be, for they have no intention of 
doing the least harm to anyone. Instead, their intention is to do 
good. A law of that kind properly enforced would be of great 
benefit to the inmates of convents and Houses of Good Shepherd. 
Your own sister, brother, or other relative might be praying 
for the enactment of just such a law to relieve them and others 
from the mental and physical suffering they may endure. You, 
Catholic reader, should not only not fight against the enactment of 
such a law, but you should be the very first to advocate a law of that 
kind just as a person should be most interested in the affairs of his 
or her own house. Begin to do your own thinking, Catholic reader. 
It is not only your privilege, but your duty to do so, no matter what 
your priest, prelate, or pope may tell you to the contrary. The 
one who does your thinking generally also eats, drinks, dresses, 
and is housed well in your stead. While millions of Catholics the 
world over have often not enough to eat and live in hovels, the 
priests and prelates whom you permit to do your thinking reside in 
large and well equipped houses and live on the best that the land 
produces. Investigate, Catholic reader, and see if that is not so. 

Next let us consider the relic swindle. All supposed relics 
from the supposed cross of Christ to the shin bone of St. Ann are 
positively fakes, and any report that a cure has been affected by 
touching any or all of them is a deliberate falsehood and any priest 
or prelate who puts them on exhibition under the pretence that 
they have healing power is consciously or unconsciously deceiving 
you. He is either a fool or a swindler. This may sound like strong 
language and a bold assertion, but it is also as true as it is strong 
and bold. Do not let them fool you, Catholic reader, by telling you 
that this or that great doctor or professor had certified that mir- 
aculous cures were effected, for doctors and professors are no more 
than other human beings infallible or bribe-proof. I defy any and 
all priests and doctors to prove that even the simplest cure was 
ever effected through socalled relics. A real investigation will pos- 
itively prove that all socalled relics have as much healing power 
as pagan images have. Anyone who knows anything about Catholic 
priests and prelates knows that they are able to realize that a palace 
containing from fourteen to forty-five rooms is a better place to 
live in than a hut of three or four dingy, unventilated rooms ; that 
a good beefsteak is more nourishing than a piece of dry soup meat; 
and that a broadcloth suit is better than one made of cotton. If 

195 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

priests and prelates can distinguish good quality from poor quality 
in those instances, they must be able to do the same in other cases. 
Cures through socalled relics are cheap and supposed to be sure 
and thorough, and should, therefore, be more desirable for the one 
who believes in them than the expensive and uncertain medical or 
surgical method. You, Catholic reader, have, no doubt, many times 
read in newspapers, that the pope, a cardinal, a bishop, or a priest 
is suffering from one ailment or another, and that he has placed 
himself under the treatment of some great specialist, or that he is 
seeking cure in some health resort, but you never read that a pope, 
cardinal, bishop, or priest went to the shrine of some supposed 
relic to be cured, and I doubt very much whether any of their near 
relatives even look to socalled relics for a cure. Yes, I am positive 
that if you, Catholic reader, would investigate, you would find that 
there are instances where the very priest, in whose church some so- 
called relic is from time to time exhibited, during the very days 
that thousand of his dupes throng the church in expectation of being 
cured, has been under the care of some good doctor, and perhaps 
used the very money that the ignorant people give to induce the 
saint to cure them to pay his doctor's bill. A priest or prelate, 
Catholic reader, would not even dream of looking to St. Ann's shin 
bone, a piece of a cross or any part of any other socalled saint for 
cure. Why not, Catholic reader? Why should he prefer paying 
a large doctor's bill to being cured in a miraculous way, if such is 
possible? If you knew of a reliable cure for certain diseases which 
you could conscientiously recommend to others, would you not be 
glad to use that same remedy yourself, if you were sick? Indeed you 
would be the first to use it. But if you knew that what you recom- 
mended to others as a remedy was only a fake employed as a means to 
make money, you would not look to that socalled remedy for a cure. 
What holds good with you, holds good with popes, priests and pre- 
lates. Form your own opinion, Catholic reader. 

The socalled holy relic cure is a fraud, pure and simple, and 
the proprietors and editors of newspapers and magazines ought to 
be ashamed of themselves for permitting the columns of their papers 
to be used to advertise such a swindle, and thereby assist these 
contemptible fakers in deceiving millions of ignorant but innocent 
people. I, for one, feel sure that if the priests did not know that it 
was a fake, they would be the very first to look for cure from that 
source instead of undergoing expensive and often painful and dang- 
erous medical and surgical treatment. But granted that a piece of 
a cross or the bone of this or that saint has power to cure, why 
are they not on exhibition all the time? Why only once a year, 
and then only for a few days? Are the saints not willing to have 
the cripples, the blind, and the sick cured all the year round? Think 
over this and other questions asked herein, Catholic reader, and then 

196 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

try to answer them to yourself. For the same reasons, that a 
business house has a bargain sale only once or twice a year and 
not every day, in my opinion at least, the priests have a novena, or 
the socalled relics on exhibition for a few days each year instead 
of every day. The reason is, in my opinion, a financial one. What 
do you think, Catholic reader? We have printed testimony of a man, 
who was for twenty-one years a Catholic priest, that missions, like 
the holy relic frauds, are nothing more or less than financial under- 
takings. He informs us that an agreement is made between the priest 
in whose church the mission is held and the holy fathers who do 
the preaching, to divide the proceeds of the mission among them- 
selves, the parish priest always receiving the largest share. He tells 
of instances where the priests fought a fist fight over the money after 
the show, Oh ! pardon me, I meant to say after the mission was over. 
Proprietors and managers of theatres make the same or very similar 
agreements with the company they engage to play, and they too have 
fights occasionally over the division of the money, especially when 
the expected amount is not realized. Note, Catholic reader, that 
during a mission, the parish priest is generally, if not always, his 
own collector. It is also a well known fact that special efforts are 
made in the closing days of the mission to get all the money possible 
out of those who attend. The Bible tells us that when Christ was 
on this earth, He drove the gamblers out of the temple with a rope. 
You may be sure, Catholic reader, that if Christ came to-day, He 
would take a gatling gun instead of a rope. The millions which the 
pope, prelates, and many priests possess do not grow on trees nor do 
they rain from the sky. They come from the pockets of the poorest 
of the poor as well as from the rich. Begin to think for yourselves, 
Catholic readers, and don't let them deceive you any longer. 

I am positive that if the Catholic people would stop giving money 
at novenas and missions, that the priests would stop holding novenas 
and missions. The same applies to holy springs and other holy fakes. 
If you do not believe me, try the experiment, Catholic reader, and be 
convinced. Priests and prelates are not in business for the fun of it. 
There are absolutely no holy bones, pieces of a cross, holy or blessed 
springs, or any other so-called relics in existence that have the power 
to cure even the slightest headache, and, in my opinion at least, 
there is not a priest in existence who has held the job for a year or 
more, who does not know that they have no such power. It would 
be just as reasonable to expect a doctor who had assisted in a dozen 
childbirths to believe that the stork brings the children, as it 
would be for a priest with a year's experience to believe that holy 
bones or any other so-called holy relics have the healing powers 
claimed for them. This is plain talk, Catholic readers. It means 
that every priest or prelate who claims healing powers for any kind 
of relics, so-called holy springs, or other supposedly blessed articles 

197 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

is either a big ignoramus or a contemptible swindler. It has been 
very authoritatively said that if all the pieces of the holy cross that 
are claimed to be in existence the world over were put together, it 
would make a cross ten times the size of the one on which Christ 
was crucified. Also that if all the heads, arms, legs, and fingers of 
certain supposed saints which are exhibited in different churches the 
world over were real, some of them must have had two or more 
heads, four or five arms and legs, several dozen fingers, and so forth. 
Frauds, Catholic reader, nothing but frauds. I firmly believe that a 
real investigation would prove that some of the supposed bones of 
saints are not even human bones, but those of some animal. I chal- 
lenge the church officials to prove that the statements I make about 
so-called relics are not true. Do not let them put you of! by calling 
me' vile names, for that proves nothing, dear reader. Calling names 
may do among children, but not among sensible men and women. 
Demand that they prove what they claim or admit that they are 
wrong. 

There are many similar frauds practised by the Catholic priest- 
hood upon their ignorant followers, and with the full consent of the 
church. Each one of these deserve attention, but for brevity sake, 
I shall content myself with drawing your attention to just one more, 
and incidentally the most profitable and barefaced fraud of all. I 
refer to the doctrine that souls which are suffering in purgatory 
can be released therefrom or their time of suffering shortened by 
having masses read for them. Every Catholic over eighteen years 
of age, who possesses a normal intellect and is not altogether asleep, 
must know that the universal rule is : No money, no mass ; little 
money, little mass ; big money, big mass. In order that you, Catholic 
reader, might clearly see how great a swindle this is, and how un- 
scrupulous the Catholic priesthood is, in connection with this par- 
ticular money-making scheme, let us take it for granted that what 
they teach us about mass and purgatory is the whole truth and noth- 
ing but the truth, and let that be our guide. The Catholic church 
through its clergy teaches that purgatory is a place where the souls 
of those who died with minor, but no moral sins resting upon them, 
go to be cleansed from those sins through sufferings they are sub- 
jected to, and that then heaven is open to them. It is important 
that you remember, Catholic reader, that none who go to purgatory 
have a mortal sin resting upon them, for all such must go to hell, 
according to the teaching of the Catholic church. We are also taught 
that, unlike hell, suffering of the souls in purgatory can be shortened 
or entirely ended by praying for them, through indulgences, or by 
having masses said for them. The so-called sacrifice of the mass 
is said to be the most effective means to release souls from purgatory, 
or to shorten their term of suffering, and it should be, if what the 
Catholic church teaches in that respect is the truth. We have seen 

198 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

what purgatory is supposed to be, and acquainted ourselves with its 
surrounding circumstances. It is now in order that we inquire as 
to what the sacrifice of mass, as they call it, is, or at least, what it is 
supposed to be. I believe it is safe to assert that the overwhelming 
majority of Catholics, even in the most civilized countries, do not 
know the great importance that is attached to the celebration of mass 
offering by the Catholic priesthood. If they did, mass reading would 
not be as profitable to the priests as it is to-day. For the benefit of all. 
those who do not know, I shall let the cat out of the bag, and a big cat 
it is for those who have intelligence enough to reailze its importance.. 
Listen then, Catholic reader. According to the teachings of the 
Catholic church, Roman and otherwise, the sacrifice of mass is the 
actual bloodless crucification of Christ. In other words, every time 
a Catholic priest or prelate reads mass, Christ has suffered, died, and 
risen from the grave and ascended to heaven all over again just as 
he did, according to the teaching of the church, nearly nineteen 
hundred years ago. Everything said and done by both priest and 
mass boy and even the different articles of clothing worn by the 
priest signify something in connection with the suffering of Christ. 
The Catholic church further teaches that the grace bestowed on the 
human race, through the one suffering and dying of Christ nearly 
nineteen hundred years ago, was sufficient to redeem all the millions 
who lived before that time, and thereby opened the gates of heaven 
to them and assured the forgiveness of all sins, inherited or self- 
committed, to every human creature the world over and for all time 
to come. 

The Catholic church also teaches that the full benefit of the 
mass or sacrifice of Christ is bestowed upon that one particular soul 
for whom the mass is celebrated. If that is the case, and if the sacri- 
ficing of Christ nineteen hundred years ago was sufficient to redeem 
the whole world from its beginning to its end, then one unbloody 
repitition of that selfsame sacrifice enacted by the priest on the altar 
should surely be sufficient to release one poor soul without a mortal 
sin to its credit from that place called purgatory. Then why, Cath- 
olic reader, does the Catholic church through its priest impress upon 
the living relatives the necessity of having a dozen, yes, a hundred 
masses read, as long as they can pay for them. Perish the thought, 
Catholic reader, that the reason for reading a large number of masses, 
when one, according to their own teaching must be more than 
sufficient, might be a financial one, for to entertain such an unholy 
thought about a Catholic priest would stamp you a heretic of the 
worst kind. My stepmother's mother, an honest, hardworking 
woman, who went at least once each month to confession and com- 
munion, had twenty masses read before she died as a sort of payment 
in advance, and left a large amount of money with the priest to have 
more masses read after her death. Again I must ask: Why so many 

199 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

masses when one must be more than enough? If your priest tells 
you that the benefit of masses not needed by one goes to another, you 
can safely tell him that the Catholic priesthood has been paid for 
enough masses to do for a thousand worlds like this one, and for all 
time to come. This fact will be clear to you when you consider the 
importance attached to this supposed sacrifice of Christ, called mass, 
and the amount of masses that have been read. Just think of it, 
Catholic reader, one sacrifice nineteen hundred years ago was suffic- 
ient to open the gates of heaven to millions, yes, billions of people. 
To-day, apparently at least, that selfsame sacrifice is not sufficient 
to release one poor soul from purgatory. Think this over Catholic 
reader and ask yourself: Why is this so? 

I have evidence before me that a woman left over Five Thousand 
Dollars to a priest for the express purpose of having masses read for 
her soul, and of many others who left similar amounts for the same 
purpose. If what the Catholic church teaches about mass is true, 
the priest must surely know that no such sum of money is necessary 
to release one or even a hundred souls from purgatory. Then why, 
Catholic reader, does he take all that money for that purpose ? Surely 
Five or Ten Thousand Dollars would pay him well for the time re- 
quired to read mass. If a business man needed Five Dollars for 
material to complete a certain job, and he charged only one of his 
ignorant customers Five Hundred Dollars, we would have the right 
to call him a swindler, and the law would punish him as such. What 
then shall we call the priest or prelate who takes Five Thousand 
Dollars when Five or Ten Dollars would pay him well? I leave it 
to you, Catholic reader, to give him the name he deserves. 

I know of a case where a Roman Catholic priest refused to read 
mass for the supposed soul of a poor woman whose husband could not 
pay for it then and there, the priest telling the husband that there 
was no hurry about having a mass read for his wife. There is no 
hurry, Catholic reader, to get the supposed soul of your beloved ones 
out of purgatory if you have not the ready cash to pay the priest in 
advance for his services, but it is a great sin to neglect this if you 
have the money to pay him. What a fraud, and a farce! Catholic 
reader, think this over, investigate, and refuse to be fooled any longer. 
I also have evidence that a Roman Catholic priest in New York City 
charged a man in the neighborhood of Fifty Dollars for a high mass, 
and sued in the civil court for a portion thereof still due him. Just 
as a lawyer or doctor would sue for money due him for professional 
services rendered, a supposed representative of God on earth sues 
for money due him for supposedly praying a soul out of purgatory. 
How does the subject of mass reading to get souls out of purgatory 
or for any other purpose look to you now, Catholic reader? A shell 
game is worked on you every day. Wake up. 

Have you ever considered the fact, Catholic reader, that if it is 

200 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

true, as the Catholic church teaches, that the reading of masses, 
which have to be paid for, will release poor souls from purgatory, 
and that a number of masses are necessary to accomplish that result. 
It follows that those who are wealthy in worldly goods can make 
positively sure that they need not go to purgatory at all, while those 
not blessed with the good things of this world must languish and 
suffer until their allotted time is served. When we consider that the 
releasing of souls is supposed to be done by a God who knows every- 
thing, we cannot help but come to the conclusion that the grace of a 
God, like the favor of the commonest human being, can be bought 
with money. When we consider, on the other hand, that a priest, 
a self-styled representative of a supposedly righteous God, who claims 
to have the power to release poor suffering souls from purgatory or 
temporary hell -by the simple method of celebrating mass for them, 
will not do so unless he is paid for it, we cannot help but come to the 
conclusion that such a creature is worse than a brute, and deserves 
to be despised, instead of honored and almost worshipped as is done 
to-day by his deluded followers. What do you say, Catholic read- 
er? There are hundreds of thousands of Catholic priests and pre- 
lates in this world who claim to possess the power to pray souls 
out of purgatory. If each one of them would read just one mass, 
it would empty purgatory at once and keep it empty for all time 
to come, that is, if what the Catholic church teaches us in regard to 
purgatory and the so-called sacrifice of Christ, called mass, is true. 
And yet, Catholic reader, these self-styled representatives of God 
will take thousands of dollars from one individual for that purpose, 
and many of them will take the last dollar from the poorest widow 
with a dozen hungry children depending on her under the pretence 
of praying the soul of the father and husband out of purgatory. No 
doubt, many a poor widow can testify to the truth of this. My 
Catholic friends, the overwhelming majority of these supposed soul- 
savers care nothing whatever whether your children have soles under 
their feet, or bread to eat, but they do seem to care a great deal what 
happens to the soul for which masses have to be read. Can you 
guess why, Catholic reader? 

That praying for souls is profitable is vouched for by Father 
Chiniquy, a priest for twenty-five years, who fifty years ago estimated 
that in North America alone Ten Million Dollars are spent yearly 
for the purpose of saving souls from purgatory. Remember, Catholic 
reader, this estimate by a priest twenty-five years in the priesthood 
% was made fifty years ago when the number of Catholics in North 
America was much smaller than it is today. Judge for yourself 
how much larger the amount spent for mass reading must be to-day 
than it was fifty years ago. Then ask yourself this question : In 
whose pocket does all that money flow ?, and the additional question : 
Can it be true that a God, as described to us, demands money for 

201 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

releasing poor souls from a place of suffering? The same priest tells 
us that one of his fellow priests said to him : "Every time my mind 
turns to those streams of money which day in and day out flow from 
the small purses of our pious and unsuspecting people into our hands 
and from ours into those of the bishop's, I feel like choking." The 
conscience of many priests and even prelates revolt against that 
damnable hold-up system. Many Catholic priests leave the priest- 
hood and the church every year for this very reason. Those priests 
who wish to hold their jobs, must keep still and obey. Positive 
proof can be furnished to establish the above assertions. 

Such a place as purgatory is supposed to be is not in existence, 
Catholic reader, and if any priest takes money from anyone under the 
pretence of drawing one single soul even one thousandth of an inch 
out "of purgatory, he is consciously or unconsciously robbing the one 
he takes it from, and should be prosecuted for taking money under 
false pretences. This is plain talk, Catholic reader, and if what I 
say is not true, any priest can sue me for libel and put me in state 
prison. Watch and see if they do, and when you see that they do 
not sue me, ask yourself: Why don't they? Then try to answer 
that question to yourself. When you are convinced that what I say 
is true, join this movement and help to convince others, for it is high 
time that an end be put to that mass reading swindle. But if the 
priests refused to take one cent for mass reading, it would still be a 
swindle, for the good and sufficient reason that the bread wafer or 
host is, after the so-called consecration as before an unsalted bread 
wafer and not the living body of Christ. This, in turn, spells that 
mass is nothing more than a number of meaningless ceremonies and 
not the unbloody sacrifice of Christ, and consequently does not possess 
the power to release souls from purgatory or any other place. This 
declaration will undoubtedly stagger not only all the very religious, 
but also many of the lukewarm adherents of the Catholic church. 
They will say and rightly so, that if that fact is proven, it will rob 
the Catholic church of the foundation it stands on. Let us investigate. 

The Catholic church claims that her priests are the only true 
successors of the apostles of Christ and the only ones who received 
from God through Christ the power to change a piece of unsalted 
bread into the actual living body of Christ, or, in other words, that 
a priest of the Catholic church can through a process, which they 
call consecration command Christ himself to come to this world and 
turn his whole living self into a piece of unsalted bread, called wafer 
before and host after the operation. For proof, read the following 
extract from a sermon by Father Martin M. Gregory, a Roman Cath- 
olic wriest, delivered recently in one of the Catholic churches of 
Chica^ 0> anc j reported in the Chicago Inter-Ocean. The subject of 
the ser mon was "The Priesthood of Christ." 

"The priest of today, rightly ordained in the church, is as truly 

202 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

a priest as were the apostles or even Christ himself. In his elevation 
to the sacerdotal order the priest receives a spiritual character and 
he participates in the divine power of our Savior. He is not merely 
like Aaron and Melchizedek, he is like Christ himself. He is another 
Christ. He not merely represents Christ ; he is one with Him. 
Christ is in him by the divine power he has received in ordination 
and through the mystic words of consecration he really and truly 
offers up to God his own Divine Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus 
Christ. 

"I cannot exaggerate the power and dignity of the priest of God. 
His power is greater than that of an angel. His dignity is greater 
than that of Mary, the queen of the angels. At the altar his power is 
not inferior to that of God Himself. In the most adorable sacrifice of 
the mass the priest in taking bread and wine and pronouncing the 
several words of consecration draws aside the veil of heaven and calls 
Christ down upon our altar. At the voice of the priest the substances 
of bread and wine are immediately changed into the holy body and 
blood of Christ. No power of man is equal to this sublime action. 
It must be the power of God." Is this clear enough, Catholic reader? 

Through this claim and through this only has the Catholic church 
established itself, in the opinion of its own members at least, as the 
only true and infallible church. If this one claim is proven to be a 
false one, it will not only shatter all the other claims of the Catholic 
church, but it will rob her of the foundation she stands on, yes, of 
her very essence of life, and her priesthood of the godliness that now 
enshrines them. To prove this claim true or false, it is necessary to 
prove or disprove that the bread wafer is or is not the living body of 
Christ after consecration so-called has taken place. We have a 
perfect right to demand that the Catholic church as such, which made 
the first claim, should prove the truth thereof. This the church has 
never done. Her priests, however, realizing that grave doubts might 
be entertained in relation thereto, have, on many occasions, tried to 
create a semblance of proof by spreading reports of this nature : An 
unbeliever, who with an evil mind and without going to confession 
presented himself at the communion bench, was struck dead or par- 
alyzed the moment the consecrated wafer was placed in his mouth. 
Another, who took the host home to make ridicule over it in the 
presence of other unbelievers was surprised to see it leaving his hand 
and flying around the room until a priest came with a chalice to 
receive it and take it back to the church. Still another, who intended 
to cut the wafer, called host, into pieces saw natural blood flowing 
from it after the first cut was made. They even tell of a priest who 
being in doubt as to whether the bread wafer after consecration was 
really the living body of Christ, decided to make a test by cutting- 
the supposedly consecrated wafer, and saw real blood running from 
the cut he made. Many other similar stories are told with the same 

203 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

purpose in view. By circulating stories of that kind, the management 
of the Catholic church practically admits that the only way its own 
case can be proven is by making a test. To prove that a material 
thing has after a certain operation changed into something different 
from what it was before the operation, without this being detectable 
through any of our five senses, a test is positively the only method. 
For instance, to convince yourself that an ordinary steel bar had been 
turned into a strong magnet, you would have to put its supposed 
powers to a test. It being a fact that the wafer is, like the steel bar, 
after the miraculous change is supposed to have taken place, not one 
particle different in size, shape, color, weight, or taste than it was 
before, a test is the only possible way to determine beyond a reason- 
able doubt whether this bread wafer is, after the so-called consecra- 
tion, really the living body of Christ as claimed by the Catholic church. 
This test I am willing to make, not before a few unbelievers for 
the purpose of ridicule, but in the presence of millions of good Cath- 
olics, including priests, prelates, and the pope for the sole purpose of 
proving to the Catholics the world over that this bread wafer, called 
host, is after the act of consecration so-called not the living body of 
Christ, but the same plain wafer of unsalted bread as before. Ask 
your priest, bishop, or cardinal, Catholic reader, to give me an oppor- 
tunity to make a demonstration of that kind in some large church or 
public square. If they are honest and willing that all Catholics 
should know the truth in this respect at least, they will make no ob- 
jections thereto, for if the test proves their teachings to be true, the 
belief therein by their followers and others would thereby be greatly 
strengthened, and that would be a benefit to the church. If, on the 
other hand, the test should prove my contention to be true, they, as 
honest men, should be glad for their own and your sake, that the real 
truth about an important matter of this kind had at last been proven 
by a practical demonstration. After this declaration, most, if not all, 
my Catholic readers will hold up their hands in horror and proclaim 
that the mere thought of such a test is a sacrilege. In answer, I say 
that if there is a just God in existence, as we are told there is, he will 
not only have no objection to his children making inquiry into the 
truth of important religious doctrines, but will welcome such in- 
quiries and assist those seeking to discover the truth. Pagans or 
idol worshippers bring large quantities of food and only the best into 
the temple and place it before certain images or supposed Gods. The 
next day every bit of that food has disappeared and the believers in 
these Gods, the uneducated at least, believe just as solemnly that these 
wooden or stone images really eat that food, as you, Catholic reader, 
believe that the bread wafer is, after consecration, the living body of 
Christ, and many of them, no doubt, would murder anyone who would 
dare to assert that the images could not eat any food even if they 
wanted to. Yes, this belief in the ability of these images to partake 

204 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

of material food is the main, if not the sole, inspiration for their belief 
that their Gods are alive at all and able to protect or harm them. 
To shatter that belief would be equal to destroying their belief in 
the heathen Gods. Would you, Catholic reader, consider it, therefore, 
a sacrilege if anyone who knew positively that the idols could not 
eat the things set before them asked for a chance to prove this in a 
practical and convincing manner? You surely would not. Well, 
then, Catholic reader, if that is not a sacrilege, it is also not a sacri- 
lege to investigate the truth of the claim that a piece of bread can be 
turned into an almighty God. The poor pagan people are told that 
images made of stone or wood can eat the food set before them, and 
they believe what they are told, just like you believe when your 
priests tell you that they can turn a piece of bread into a living, 
supernatural Being or God. Unfortunately the idol worshippers- 
never think of asking themselves this question : Why don't 
these Gods ever eat any of that food when those who bring it are 
around? If they did the heathen priests would undoubtedly get very 
angry and declare that it is a sin to even think of such a thing. 
There are many questions of a very similar nature to the one above, 
that you, Catholic reader, should ask yourself in relation to much that 
your church teaches you. Your priests, or many of them at least, like 
the pagan priests, would get very angry, but you, dear reader, would 
discover that much that you believe to be the truth is not the truth. 

It may here not be out of place to mention that, according to the 
historian, Henry Chas. Lea, one Jean Langlois, a priest of Crispin, 
France, while reading mass, June 3, 1491, horrified his flock by throw- 
ing the consecrated wine and host on the floor and trampling thereon, 
saying that it was a swindle to say God was present in the wine and 
bread. For this he was burned at the stake. Another priest, Aymon 
Picard by name, on August 25, 1503, took the host from a celebrant 
and threw it in pieces on the floor and stepped thereon to prove that 
it is nothing but bread and not the living body of Christ. He was 
also burned. Hundreds of others were imprisoned or burned for 
trying to prove to the people the real truth concerning many church 
doctrines. Ask yourself this question, Catholic reader: Did the 
buring of these people make that which they had proved a swindle 
not a swindle? Then answer that question to yourself. You may 
be sure that many priests are living today who have the very same 
idea about the so-called consecrated host as these two mentioned, 
but they have not the courage to make it known. A large number of 
the latter quietly leave the priesthood, and no one but their nearest 
relatives are any wiser for it. In one diocese in the state of Massa- 
chusetts, twenty-one priests left in a period of three years. I remem- 
ber reading, about two years ago, of a young Catholic priest of Irish 
nationality, who held a very good position in Brooklyn, N. Y., and who 
resigned from the priesthood and the church. In his letter of resign- 

205 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

ation, after thanking the bishop for the generous treatment he had 
received at his hands, he had this to say : "I do not wish to explain in 
detail my reason for resigning. It is sufficient to state that my con- 
science does not permit me to remain any longer a member of the 
priesthood or the Catholic church." What can it have been that the 
conscience of this intelligent and honest young man rebelled against? 
Ask yourself that question, Catholic reader, and then try to answer it. 
A day or two after this occurrence, Cardinal Gibbons had occasion to 
go to Rome. Before the boat sailed, he was asked what he thought 
of the actions of the young priest, and, according to the papers, his 
answer was that the priest was too young and not accountable. You 
may be sure, Catholic reader, that each of the twenty-one priests 
previously mentioned as well as this one knew what they were doing 
when they resigned, and that they had good reasons for doing so. If 
Catholics knew how many priests leave their posts, they would not 
only start to think for themselves, but begin to investigate. That 
is why the truth is carefully kept from them. But after all, Catholic 
reader, the best proof for yourself is to prove a thing to yourself. 
Since the truth as to whether the so-called consecrated bread wafer 
is a living God, can only be determined by a test, I advise you, to 
make that test yourself in the following manner: If cutting the 
supposedly consecrated wafer is sure to bring blood therefrom, de- 
liberate biting into it with the intenton of making a test must surely 
also bring blood. Try this the next time you go to communion. 
Chew the wafer all up before it melts, and if no blood flows from it, you 
know that it is not the living body of Christ, but instead a plain, 
ordinary wafer of unsalted bread. This experiment will prove that 
your priests are daily lying to you in regard to this important doc- 
trine of the Catholic church. Do not be afraid, Catholic reader, to 
make this test. No more harm will come to you from any God for 
doing this than did to Abraham or the Chinese students in California 
for smashing images of supposed Gods. Neither will any blood 
come into your mouth for the wafer contains no blood. Do this, 
Catholic reader, and know the truth. So much then for proving or 
disproving by test. 

In addition to this, I wish to point out to you two other facts, 
which indicate very strongly in my opinion at least, that the sup- 
posedly consecrated wafer, called host, is not the living body of 
Christ, and that the priests are well aware of that fact. Have you 
ever, Catholic reader, heard in case of fire, a flood, or any other 
calamity anyone shouting, "Save God?" You will say, "Surely not, 
for a God is well able to take care of himself, and besides nothing in 
this world can hurt Him in the least." I have before me two 
newspaper clippings, the heading of which reads thus: "Catholic 
priest risks life to save the host from the flames." Here then, Cath- 
olic reader, we have two priests who apparently do not believe that 

206 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

the God they profess to believe in, is able to take care of himself, 
that is, if they believe that the host socalled, which is supposed 
to be ever present on the altar, is really the living body of Christ. 
Both of these priests had in all probability themselves consecrated 
the very host they are said to have saved at the risk of their own 
lives. Such men as these, who are supposed to have the power to 
command God to come from heaven to the altar, should surely 
know that if a God, as described to us, is present on the altar, he 
is well able to and surely would save Himself in the shape of a 
piece of bread, as well as in any other form, and perhaps the golden 
chalice or cibodium which contains Him as well. Why then, Cath- 
olic reader, did these priests risk their lives to save God in the form 
of the wafer from the flames? In answer, I must again repeat the 
old and true saying, "Actions speak louder than words." The action 
of both of these priests must prove to anyone with a grain of common 
sense and not so blind that he does not want to see, that they do 
not believe the piece of bread, called host, to be the living body 
of Christ. If they did, they would have shown more confidence 
in His godly powers. You ma> feel assured, Catholic reader, that 
if they risk their lives for anything, they risk it for the golden 
chalice and cibodium, that are generally concealed in the altar and 
contain one or more of the socalled consecrated wafer. What is 
your opinion? 

Next, Catholic reader, let us turn our attention to the Father 
Schmidt case. In my opinion, there is a lesson to be learned from 
it. Here we have a Catholic priest, a socalled representative of God 
on earth, at perhaps two or three o'clock in the morning murder- 
ing and cutting into pieces a poor, trusting, and unsuspecting girl, 
and at six or eight o'clock reading mass, or, in other words, chang- 
ing a piece of unsalted bread into the living body of Christ, or, in 
still other words, a cold-blooded murderer of an inoffensive human 
being, commands a supposedly almighty, alwise, and just God to 
come from heaven and obey him, the murderer; and, according to 
the teachings of the Catholic church, that great and righteous God 
in the person of that just and loving Christ obeys this murderer, 
comes from heaven, and, in the form of a wafer, remains on the 
altar in company with this murderer. Just think this over, Catholic 
reader, and see if you can believe, in spite of what your priest may 
tell you, that a God of that description would obey the commands 
of such a cowardly murderer whose hands were still warm with 
the blood of his victim. What kind of a God must that be? Is 
it not more likely that if it is true that a God, as described to us, 
is in existence and ever present on the altar, that this God, instead 
of obeying him, would have paralyzed that murderer as soon as 
he attempted to mount the steps of the altar? And you, dear reader, 
no doubt remember as well as I do that this murderer read mass] 

207 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

heard confession, gave communion, baptised innocent children, joined 
good and honest people in marriage, in short he performed every 
function of that supposedly holy and infallible Catholic church for 
four or five days with that black heart and those blood-stained 
hands of his. And what is more, Catholic reader, had he not been 
caught, he would to this day be called Father Schmidt, and be almost 
worshipped by his innocent, but deluded dupes. He would be daily 
commanding God to come from heaven, and performing every other 
function of the Catholic church. Just think of such a cold-blooded 
murderer hearing confessions of men, women, and children, advis- 
ing them to be good, imposing pennance on them, and praying 
souls out of purgatory. Can you believe, that a God, as described 
to us, would stand for such mockery? Think it over, Catholic 
reader, and then answer that question honestly to yourself at least. 
If you put up the argument as many Catholics have done that Father 
Schmidt was an imposter and not a regular ordained Catholic priest, 
then I say if an imposter can parade as a Catholic priest for eight 
months under the very eyes of a Bishop McFaul in Trenton and 
for three years under the very nose of the archbishop of New York 
City, then how do you know that the priest who reads mass for 
you, hears your confession, baptises you children, and whom you 
expect to pray you and loved ones out of purgatory is not an im- 
poster also. If Hans Schmidt really was an imposter, and he could 
keep that game up as long as he did, then, Catholic reader, your 
church as such offers you very poor protection against imposters, 
and for all that we know the priesthood might be full of them. If, 
on the other hand, he was not an imposter, but a regular ordained 
priest of the Roman Catholic church, it proves that it is not im- 
possible for a socalled representative of Christ on earth, who, ac- 
cording to the teachings of the Catholic church, is in some respects 
equal and even above God in power, to break his vow of celibacy, 
to be a counterfeiter, a thief, a murderer, and perhaps many other 
things while he is performing the sacred functions of that socalled 
one and only true church. Should the argument be put forth that 
God did stop his unholy work at last, I say that if a God, as des- 
cribed to us, had any hand in stopping this priest's career, He would 
surely have done so before the murder was committed. No. Catholic 
reader, no God had a hand in stopping his criminal career. He 
was caught just like any other criminal and came very near es- 
caping the meshes of the law. And what is more, I, for one, sol- 
emnly believe that if certain church officials had known before his 
arrest that he, a priest, was a murderer, the world would never 
have found it out, and he would never have been arrested. The 
actions of the church authorities after he was arrested in trying to 
prove him insane or an imposter prove that they would gladly have 
done almost anything to keep the world at large from knowing 

203 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

that a supposedly holy priest could at the same time be a cold- 
blooded murderer, perhaps not so much to prevent a criminal of 
Father Schmidt's type to escape just punishment, but to save the 
church from disgrace. I wonder, Catholic reader, who it was that 
supplied two large funds to defend him, and why? Can you guess? 
It is also of interest to every honest person to know who the parties 
are who, at this very day, are trying to secure a third trial for this 
self-confessed murderer, and why this is done. Remember, Catholic 
reader, that Hans Schmidt has no other friends in the United States 
but his fellow priests. All Catholics should give this their serious 
consideration. 

A one and only true church supposedly built on the rock of 
St. Peter, and at whose head we are told stands the infallible, direct 
representative of an almighty and alwise God should not be afraid 
of any stain that any of its members can cast upon it, and should 
be always ready to bring a criminal among its ranks to the bar of 
justice. What is more, Catholic reader, I, for one, feel certain that 
Anna Amuller was not the first person murdered by Father Schmidt 
and not intended to be his last victim. Certain evidence presented 
at the two trials will, I believe, bear me out in this. I feel equally 
sure that Father Schmidt is not the only member of the Catholic 
priesthood who is guilty of many crimes, including murder. I could 
give you a long list of priests who have been actually convicted 
of various crimes, and others over whom very strong suspicion 
hangs that they are murderes, but for brevity sake, I shall refrain 
from doing so here. Many of these characters are still in good 
standing in the priesthood and perform all the functions of the 
Catholic church. 

How would you like to go yourself or send your innocent boy 
or girl to confession to a character of that kind ? How do you know, 
Catholic reader, that you are not doing this very thing at this very 
time? We read of so many good and innocent girls who disappear 
as if the earth had swallowed them. In relation to this, ask your- 
self this question, Catholic reader: Would a priest of the type of 
Father Schmidt or Father Verira, for instance, shrink from making 
use of the confessional and the great confidence placed in them by 
Catholics to deliver unsuspecting girls under one pretence or an- 
other into a house of ill-fame. I feel confident that if the Catholics 
the world over had knowledge of even a small part of the wrong 
that is undoubtedly committed by unscrupulous priests through the 
confessional, they would put an end to auricular or ear confession in 
short order. Think this over, Catholic reader, stop taking everything 
for gospel truth that priests or prelates tell you, investigate all they 
say, and write just as you would and should the sayings and writings 
of anyone else. 

For proof that the members of the priesthood and those in con- 

209 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

vents were in the past no better than they are now, read the follow- 
ing" from the work of Henry Chas. Lea, a historian : "As early as 
the fifth century, the monks and nuns would induce people of means 
to spend their last days in the convent for the sake of the worldly 
possessions which they brought with them or bequeathed to them." 
Pope Leo, the Great, condemned this practise in strong terms because 
it deprived the parish priests of their legitimate expectations. His- 
torians also tell us that as early as 813, parish priest induced people 
of means to make their will in their, the priest's favor. The Coun- 
cil of Chalouns forbade that practise. In 1170, Pope Alexander 
III forbade priests and prelates to be present when a will was made. 
So many people were made penniless through the practises of these 
supposedly holy men who had taken the oath of poverty that the 
Council of Worcestor in 1240 decided that if the required sum would 
reduce the widows and orphans to beggary, the church should be 
contented with one-third of the estate. This intimates very strongly 
that widows and orphans had been robbed by the church. Remem- 
ber, Catholic reader, that these different councils were called by the 
various popes and attended by the highest and most influential church 
officials, and that their doings were the doings of the church as a 
whole. In 1190, Gilbert, Abbot of Gemlours, confessed with shame 
that monastic life had become an oppression, a scandal, and a hiss- 
ing, and reproach to all men. When the head of a convent makes 
such an admission, Catholic reader, there must be some truth in 
what is said by others about convents and Houses of Good Shep- 
herds. The above further proves that the popes knew that the holy 
priests and prelates of the church influenced sick and dying people 
to sign most or all of their possessions over to them and thereby 
robbed the children of these people or other rightful heirs, of what 
was rightfully theirs. The church and its prelates have not become 
immensely rich by praying for it, dear reader. When we read to 
this day of priests, bishops, and nuns suing in a court of law for 
wordly goods belonging to certain individuals, and being sued in 
return, we have proof that these holy men and women, who are 
supposed to have taken the vow of poverty, are today as much in- 
terested in wordly things as they were of old. No doubt many 
readers have learned this by experience. 

We have seen how that portion of the Christian church which 
today calls itself the Catholic church, discarded the honest, simple, 
and Christlike life of the apostles and early Christians, and replaced 
it with pomp and false teachings and practises ; we have seen how 
every doctrine of the church, sacrament, and so forth, came into 
being; how the pope received his supposed power over everything 
living and dead on this earth, and to what unholy use even the prin- 
cipal doctrines, usuages, and sacraments were and are put by sup- 
posedly God-ordained men. Now, Catholic reader, let us inquire 

210 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

into the general conduct of the Catholic church as a whole and 
its priests as individuals from about the twelfth century to the 
present day. While the Inquisition of the Middle Ages had been 
officially put in operation in the later part of the twelfth century, 
inquisitorial methods were used before that time to such an extent, 
that it might be truly said that the Inquisition had been begun much 
earlier in some parts of the world at least. It lasted in Spain and 
other parts of Europe until the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
or fully six hundred years. The Inquisition was nothing more or 
less than an instrument in the hands of the Catholic clergy to hound 
and punish socalled heretics, and it is estimated that at least two 
million people were tortured, imprisoned, and murdered, and that 
nearly a million were burned at the stake. As many as three hund- 
red at one time were put to death by burning them alive. In Holl- 
and, eight hundred were drowned in two days, and during the St. 
Bartholemew Massacre in France, which lasted from about midnight 
August 23 to the evening of August 25 in the year 1431, between 
twenty-five and thirty thousand Protestants, called Huguenots, were 
murdered. Most of these victims were killed, while they were asleep 
in bed. We are informed that when this wholesale slaughter of 
innocent people was made known to the then reigning pope, he was 
so overjoyed that he held a tedeum mass and had medals struck 
in memory thereof. This pope is surely a fine sample of a repre- 
sentative of that lowly and loving Christ who would not permit 
Peter to hurt his mortal enemies. In my opinion, any religion that 
must resort to the slaughtering of innocent people by the thousands 
at a time to keep its head above water is not only unworthy of being 
in existence, but should be stamped out completely. What is your 
opinion, Catholic reader? 

Several historians inform us that Pope Benedict III was the or- 
iginator of the Inquisition, and St. Dominic, who is now considered 
a mediator between God and man, was the first Inquis.tor General 
appointed by the pope. Here we must remember that ordinary 
criminals are not heretics. A heretic is a person who refuses to 
believe everything that the Catholic church authorities teach. For 
the sake of brevity, I shall not go into detail on the horrors of the 
Inquisition. I shall content myself with giving a very brief ac- 
count of the conditions that existed at that time. Wherever the 
Inquisition was established, no one, rich or poor, high or low, in- 
nocent or guilty, knew when his turn would come to be arrested. 
The socalled heretic was in most cases not permitted to have coun- 
sel or rebutting witnesses, and in no case was he told who his ac- 
cusers were. Those who sat in judgment over him were priests 
and prelates. People were not only punished for not confessing 
their own shortcomings, but also for not betraying others whom 
they knew or suspected of being heretics. This led people to ac- 

211 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

cuse their own fathers and mothers or sisters and brothers of wrong- 
doing which they never committed. The torture chamber and the 
stake were continuously before the eyes of the people. In most 
cases of conviction, the payment of money or the confiscation of part 
or all of their property was included in the punishment meted out to 
the heretic, in fact, that seems to have been the only reason why 
many wealthy people were persecuted. Every known device of 
torture was used to make suspected heretics confess. Historians 
tell us of priests, prelates, and wealthy laymen, who were imprisoned 
or burned for apparently no other reason than to get hold of the 
wealth they possessed. We are told that one cardinal, who owned 
a large estate, was arrested through trickery and held in prison for 
eighteen years where he died without getting a trial. During the 
time of his imprisonment, the large revenue from his estate, and after 
his death, the estate itself was confiscated by the Inquisitor. In 
the year 1157, the Council of Rheims inflicted branding in the face 
as punishment for heretics. In 1166, the Council of Oxford did the 
same. 

That the Catholic church is the one guilty of these millions 
of murders and other crimes committed is proven by the fact that 
pope after pope reminded kings, princes, and other civil authorities 
that it was their duty to execute the sentences which the church 
had imposed. Many of these men were punished by the popes for 
not obeying their orders in that respect. The Inquisitioral system 
was so brain wrecking and so demoralizing that it turned part of the 
people into dangerous fanatics and part into cowards or hypocrits. 
The few cases of persecution mentioned elsewhere in this talk and 
in other chapters will give you an idea of the evil use the members 
of the Roman priesthood made of the power they possessed at that 
time. 

How would you like such conditions to return again, Catholic 
reader? Think over this and answer that question to yourself. If 
you trusting and unsuspecting Catholics really knew what the teach- 
ings and the policy of the Catholic church are in that respect, you 
would know that that condition has never ceased to exist as far 
as your relations with the church are concerned. You connot and 
dare not be anything else than a mental slave of the Catholic hier- 
archy, Roman or otherwise, if you wish to remain a royal member 
of the Catholic church. You, Catholic reader, dare not read, think, 
or even listen to anything upon which that supposedly infallible 
head of the church, called pope, has not put his O. K. mark. For 
proof, read the following: Pope Pius IX in his encyclical letter 
August 15, 1854, said: "The absurd ravings in defense of liberty 
of conscience are most pestilential errors, pests of all others 
most dreaded by the state." In his Encyclical Letter of December 
8, 1864, he anathematize all who maintain the liberty of the press 

212 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

and all advocates of liberty of speech. He calls it liberty of per- 
dition. Is that clear enough for you, Catholic reader? According 
to a western weekly, Bishop O'Connor says: "Religious liberty 
is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect with- 
out peril to the Catholic church." This gentlemen tells you plainly 
what you and all others can expect, if the pope ever regains the 
power he once had. For further proof in this respect, read the ex- 
tract from the alleged oath of the Jesuits and other facts mentioned 
at the end of this talk. 

This bit of evidence from reliable church authorities will prove 
to you that the Catholic church as such has not only never loosened 
her hold on the minds of her members, but that she tirelessly strives 
to regain the power she once possessed which enabled her to enforce 
her claim as supreme judge over the conscience of man. In other 
words, she would gladly put the same cruel practises in operation 
with the same purpose in view. There can be no doubt at all, 
Catholic reader, that in this, the twentieth century, the church au- 
thorities would imprison, torture, or burn you and me if they had 
the power to do so for being guilty of nothing more than entertaining 
thoughts which the supposed vicar of Christ has said we shall not 
entertain. This power the Catholic church hopes to regain, and 
the Catholic hierarchy is making strong and special efforts in that 
direction in the United States of America, what is more, these power- 
thirsty heads of the Catholic church in the United States are using 
you trusting and unsuspecting Catholics as instruments in their 
endeavor to establish clergical supremacy in the one spot in this 
world where that has never been known, at least not since it became 
the United States of America. This, if successful, means that that 
curse of religious intolerance and persecution will take the place 
of religious liberty that is enjoyed by all today, and that you, Cath- 
olic reader, and all other Catholics in the land will suffer just as 
much as those of non-Catholic faith, the same as your Catholic fore- 
fathers did in every part of Europe and in some parts of the Ameri- 
can Continent up to a very short time ago. Anyone who suspects 
that he has brain matter under his skull and not sawdust and is 
not willing to become an absolute mental prostitute must positiv- 
ely expect to clash with the church authorities under such an in- 
quisitorial regime, as they will undoubtedly set up if they ever get 
the. chance. The recent impeachment of a Governor of the State of 
New York was in my opinion and in the opinion of thousands of 
others a successful attempt to place a Catholic in an important 
position to which he could not be elected. A new method to help 
the Pope to gain the power he seeks. These socalled holy men, in 
reality wolves in sheep's clothing organize you Catholics by the tens 
of thousands into oath bound organizations and to all appearances use 
your voting strength, as a club to intimidate the members of city, 

213 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

state, and national legislature into passing or refusing to pass laws 
which they consider useful or detrimental to their material interest. 
Your purchasing power, Catholic reader, is used, perhaps without you 
being aware of the fact, to boycott business people, especially manu- 
facturers of reading matter when they print, do, or neglect to print or 
do something contrary to the wishes of these selfstyled apostles of 
Christ. 

Your numerical and physical strength is employed to hamper 
or destroy the freedom of speech and the press. For proof that all 
three assertions are correct, and that these supposedly good and 
holy men not only permit but advise the applying of muscular 
Christianity, as they call it, on men and women who have the courage 
to point out the swindles they are practising on their innocent, but 
deluded followers, read the facts given below as well as those given 
at the end of this talk. 

Pope Leo XIII said, "All Catholics must make themselves felt 
in the politics of the country they live in ; they must penetrate 
everywhere in the administration of civil affairs. " Catholic reader, 
the pope wants your votes to restore to him the power to torture 
and murder all who dare to think for themselves. According to 
a western weekly, the following appeared in the September 15, 1913 
issue of the Spokane Chronicle : "Registration and participation 
in the coming election were urged as duties upon the congregation 
at the Sunday Morning Masses in our Lady of Lourdes Catholic 
church. Men and women were alike prevailed upon to use their 
efforts to defeat those in the race for election as city commissioner 
whose views and policies are inimical to the welfare of the Catholic 
church. This is another plea for your votes, Catholic reader, to 
make the Roman Hierarchy or priesthood master over the thoughts 
and actions of every human creature on this earth. Think and in- 
vestigate, Catholic reader, before you vote. Do not cut your own 
and your children's throats. 

According to the same western weekly, a Pittsburg Catholic 
paper, in speaking of a meeting held in the Carnegie Music Hall, 
at which a riot broke out, had this to say : "The bad feeling caused 
by the attacks on the Catholic church has necessitated the presence 
of several police officers and men in and around the hall. They 
should not have been sent there. It is not a part of the duty of the 
police force to protect a sectarian spouter from the righteous wrath 
of citizens whom he wantonly insults by his ignorant harangues." 
This language indicates very strongly that the party who used it 
did not like to see free speech protected, and would have been more 
pleased if the speaker had been mobbed and beaten. I wonder if 
that same individual would like to see a Catholic speaker, who might 
say things not pleasing to others, get the treatment which he says 
the anti-Catholic speaker deserved. 

214 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

The same weekly in its September 26, 1914 issue tells us that 
the "Pittsburg Observer", Catholic, when speaking of the priests 
and nuns who were driven out of Mexico, had the following to 
say: But it is for us Catholics in the United States to use our in- 
fluence to protect our brethren in Mexico from further outrages, 
and if this administration will not exert itself as it should in our 
behalf, to give our votes in the next presidential election to an ad- 
ministration that will. Is that clear enough, Catholic reader, that 
your voting strength is used to intimidate public officials? On re- 
quest, I will send more and stronger evidence to substantiate any 
assertion I have made throughout this talk. Do not forget to read 
and reread all the facts given at the end of this talk. 

If you, Catholic reader, consider yourself a civilized or nearly- 
civilized human being, refuse in the future to assist your priests to 
intimidate or coerce legislative bodies to boycot business men, or 
mob and beat public speakers, should they ask you directly or in- 
directly to do any of these things. Remember, Catholic reader, of 
North America, especially of the United States, that you are not 
living in the Stone Age or even in the Middle Ages, but in the 
twentieth century, in both an age and a country where civilized 
methods instead of malice and brute force can and should be used 
for settling differences of opinion and in defending ourselves against 
false accusations or any other real or imaginary wrongs. Tell your 
leaders this, and insist on their using the same civilized method 
to defend themselves that others may use to attack them, namely, 
arguments and reasons in speech or print. Ask them how they 
would like to have their papers or books denied the mail, to be dic- 
tated to, or be mobbed and beaten for the same offence that it is 
done to others, and ask yourselves how you personally would like 
it. Then if you consider yourself a Christian, as well as civilized, 
repeat to yourself the first Christian command supposed to be given 
by Christ Himself, namely, "Love thy neighbor as thyself, or do 
unto others as you would have others do unto you. " Then ask 
yourself this question: Have I lived up to that command? 

Most, if not everything that is said and printed about the doings of 
the Catholic priesthood, the convents, and Houses of Good Shepherds, 
and much that is not said or printed, is doubtless true. But let 
us grant, for argument sake, that not one word of it is true. Would 
it then not only be much better but more in accord with their sup- 
posedly high standing and professed Christian spirit, if some of 
their able speakers and writers would debate the question in a 
civilized manner with those who do the attacking? 

The Catholic church has a large number of men among both 
its clergy and laymen who are well able to defend any attack on 

215 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

the church as a whole or any particular part thereof, that is, if a 
defense is possible. It is also a fact that the management of the 
church as a whole, as well as individual high and low Catholic au- 
thorities and Catholic editors, have dozens of times been challenged 
by the opposition to debate the question under dispute, or refute 
any or all charges made against the church or its leaders. Then 
why, Catholic reader, do we not see some able speakers and writers 
take it upon themselves to disprove the things which they claim 
are lies? If the assertions which non-Catholic speakers make are 
libelous or criminal, we have courts, judges, and juries to straighten 
matters out. Then why use such uncivilized methods when civ- 
ilized ones are so close at hand? Why is mobbing, kidnapping, 
and a demand for the suppression of a free press and free speech the 
only reply that is made in defense of the Catholic church and its 
allied institutions? I shall tell you why, Catholic reader. The 
church leaders have apparently no defense to make. They must 
know that what is said against them is the truth, or they would 
try hard to disprove it. 

If you would accuse an innocent man of being a thief, he would 
quickly demand that you prove your accusation, and would stop 
you from calling him a thief. If, on the other hand, he is guilty of 
stealing, and he knows that you can prove him to be a thief, he 
would not try to prove himself innocent, but would abuse you for 
giving him the name he deserves, and if able, would use force to 
quiet you. Is petitioning Congress to refuses certain papers the 
mailing privilege, the closing of halls, and the mobbing, kidnapp- 
ing, and beating of speakers for no other reason than that they 
print or say something not complimentary to the party spoken of, 
not the identical methods the real thief or other criminal would 
use to shield himself from exposure? I leave it to you, Catholic 
reader, to answer that question yourself. I appeal to you, Cath- 
olic friends, not for mine, but for your own sake, not to take part 
in such disgraceful exhibitions, no matter who might urge you to 
do so. You not only committ a wrong on your fellow men and 
indirectly on yourself, but you disgrace yourself and your creed 
in the eyes of every intelligent person. Yes, the very person or 
persons who inspire you to do such things by inflaming religious 
hatred within you have no respect for you, for they consider you 
only an instrument in their hands. What makes it still worse, 
Catholic reader, is the fact that in the United States at least, the 
Catholics are the only people who use such unlawful, unchristian, 
and uncivilized methods to defend themselevs. Whenever an in- 
cident of that kind is reported, intelligent and fairminded people 
shake their heads, and say, "What else can you expect from a mob 
of ignorant Catholics who would cut their own throats if the priest 
told them to do so." The Catholics of North America, but especi- 

216 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

ally those of the United States are themselves to blame for that pre- 
vailing opinion, and it is up to them to prove to the world that 
they are not the mental slaves of their priesthood. Any Catholic 
can in speach or print attack and denounce any other religious or 
political creed to his heart's content, and no one will try to stop 
his paper, close the halls against him, mob, kidnap, or beat him. 
He might be asked questions or challenged to a debate, but no 
harm will come to him. "Why not?", you will ask. Because the 
people who oppose him are civilized, if nothing else, and detest un- 
civilized and brutish methods. If others can defend themselves 
without resorting to mob rule, why cannot Catholics do the same? 
Take a lesson from this, Catholic readers, and conduct yourselves 
in the future as civilized humans, who are able to reason, and not 
as savages, and demand that your priests do the same. Accord to 
others the same rights that you claim for yourselves, for remember 
that non-Catholics are just as human as Catholics. All these un- 
civilized methods will not coonvince one intelligent person that 
you are right and the other is wrong. 

Before leaving this subject, I would like to say a few words to 
those who belong to Catholic societies, especially to those belong- 
ing to the Knights of Columbus. My Catholic friends, all your 
church organizations from the Ladies Sodolity to the terrible Knights 
of Columbus, who, according to good Catholic authority, are or- 
dained to pave a road for the pope to the White House in Wash- 
ington, D. C, are organized and kept alive for no other purpose 
than to enable the Catholic priesthood to keep you, their followers, 
in control, and use you as tools to further their material interest. 
Not your interest, plain Catholics, but theirs and theirs only. You 
are not even permitted to suggest anything. You are only permitted 
to deliver and obey. You are not even called members of the church, 
but children of the church. You may help your priest and prelates 
individually or the church as a whole to gain wordly power and 
riches, and you will not only not be benefited one iota, but you will 
suffer from the arrogance of these same supposedly holy men you 
helped into power. A new Inquisition with the old methods will 
undoubtedly be the result, if they ever regain the temporal power 
they once had. You, Catholic men and women, are all human. 
You do not want the condition of the Middle Ages instituted again. 
Read history ; see what the record of every religious creed, especi- 
ally that of the Catholic church is; investigate the affairs of your 
church. Be not like the woman who very readily seen the one- 
quarter inch of dirt on her neighbor's floor, but shut her eyes when 
shown the two inches of dirt on her own floor proclaiming there 
is no dirt in my house. By denying that wrongs exist in your own 
church without making sure whether they exist or not, you act just 
like this woman. You encourage the wrongdoers and deceive your- 

217 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

self. To the members of the Knights of Columbus, I would say: 
If it is really your mission, as church authorities claim it is, to 
help the pope of Rome to gain temporal control on the North Ameri- 
can continent, especially in the United States, your mission is an 
unholy one. History proves beyond contradiction that in every 
part of the world where the pope of Rome ever had any say, he 
proved himself the enemy of education and progress, and his sys- 
tem the curse of the human race. To even think of turning a country 
and a people, like the United States, where full religious liberty 
prevails for everybody, over to such an arch enemy of mankind is 
an unpardonable crime for anyone who knows what he is doing, 
and he should be treated as a traitor to his country. Those who do 
so ignorantly are to be pitied for they are unconsciously endeavor- 
ing to enslave themselves and their children as well as others. If 
the oath which the fourth degree Knights take is worded only one- 
half as brutish as the one published as the alleged oath, everyone 
of the fourth degree Knights should be placed in state prison for life. 
For anyone who knowingly subscribes to an oath of that kind stamps 
himself not only a criminal but a beast in human form, and is not 
fit to be at large. 

Men of the Knights of Columbus, look yourselves in the face, 
and ask yourselves this question: Am I human? Then look at 
other human beings who do not attend the Catholic church, and 
see if they are not in every respect just as human as you are. Then 
ask yourselves this question : What have these people ever done 
to me? Why should I think of injuring any of them, or even hate 
them? My Knights of Columbus and other Catholic friends, while 
in Spain and other Catholic countries, the Roman Catholic church, 
through its supposedly infallible head, the Pope, denies to this day 
freedom of conscience to the, people, in these United States of 
America, a country, which, though it has seven non-Catholics to 
one Catholic, grants the Catholic church and every one of its mem- 
bers full religious liberty in every respect. 

Yes, Catholic reader, the Roman Catholic church has liberties 
and privileges granted to her that she is not entitled to. For proof that 
even the pope knows this, and that he desires rights and privileges 
he is not entitled to, read the following which is taken from the 
Encyclical of Leo XIII on Catholicity in the Unite'd States, addressed 
to all the bishops and clergymen in the United States, January 6, 
1895: 

"The church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and 
government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, pro- 
tected against violence by the common law and the impartiality 
of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, 
though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the con- 
clusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desir- 

218 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

able status of the church, or that it would be universally lawful or 
expedient for state and church to be, as in America, dissevered and 
divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, 
nay, is even enjoyng a prosperous growth, is by all means to be 
attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed his church. 
But she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to 
liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the 
public authority." If what the pope himself admits is true, what, 
then, Catholic reader, does the church mean when she urges her 
followers to take part in politics to help the church to come to her 
own? She surely has no reason to ask for legitimate rights and priv- 
ileges, for she has them and more. This being the case, her only 
object can be to gain the right to dictate to all human beings what 
they shall think, speak, write, or do, and the temporal power to 
enforce that monstrous claim. If that is really the object of the 
Catholic church, and I firmly believe it is, then she should not and 
she will not succeed, and anyone who tries to help her get these 
rights and powers is either insane or a traitor. If the Catholic 
church cannot get new converts or keep the old ones without resort- 
ing to uncivilized and inhumane methods, she deserves to go down. 
Think this over, members of the Knights of Columbus, or any other 
Catholic organization. Read the oaths and other obligations you 
subscribe to ; consider what your priests and prelates are telling you, 
and think seriously over every step they may ask you to take. Show 
those who are trying to use you as a tool to accomplish their un- 
holy purpose, that you have a mind of your own, and are not the 
simpletons they take you for. The average priest and prelate thinks 
very little of you, Catholic reader. Priests as a rule have more 
respect for one individual who does not believe all they advocate 
and is not afraid to say what he thinks of them, than for a hundred 
men and women who blindly believe all they teach and permit 
themselves to be used as mere instruments. I have evidence in 
my possession to substantiate that fact. And if you, Catholics, 
look around yourselves a little and do your own thinking instead 
of leaving it for the priest to do, you will become convinced that 
what I say is the truth. 

For proof, Catholic reader, that the Roman, as well as the 
Greek and Russian, Catholic church, through its hierarchy or priest- 
hood is the mortal enemy of education and progress, as well as of 
free speech and free press, look at Spain, Austria, Russia, Servia, 
the Philippine Islands, Mexico, Italy, and all other countries where 
they have had absolute control for the last twelve hundred years 
at least. To this very day in each of these countries from seventy- 
five to ninety per cent of the people are illiterate, in other words, 
can neither read nor write ; and in some of these countries, a large 
per cent of the children are born out of wedlock. According to a 

219 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

report made to the United States Senate by United States officials 
on the condition in the Philippine Islands, the country and its 
people are in a most deplorable condition and many of the Catholic 
priests and friars in the Philippine Islands are the fathers of many 
of the children born out of wedlock. This document is known as 
Senate Document Number 190. A western weekly informs us that 
a whole wagon load of these documents were destroyed. I wonder 
why they were destroyed? I wonder at whose request they were 
destroyed? I leave it to you, Catholic reader, to answer these 
questions. In Mexico about the same conditions exist. 

In Spain, the most Catholic country in the world, freedom of 
conscience, or the right to worship the God you believe in as you 
please, is to this day forbidden, and any attempt on the part of 
government officials or legislators to enact a law granting such 
rights to the people is fought tooth and nail by the pope and his 
underlings. Premier Canaleyas who worked determinedly to have 
such a law passed was assassinated. I leave it to you, Catholic 
reader, to guess why and at whose orders he was killed. Public 
schools, in the proper sense of the word, are absolutely unknown 
in Spain. Parochial schools are very few, and those few very poor 
as far as practical learning is concerned. Francisco Ferrerer, a 
very learned man, established in different parts of Spain with his 
own money what may be called the counterpart of the American 
public school. After his schools had been closed several times, 
undoubtedly through the influence of the Catholic clergy, he was 
arrested, accused of being an anarchist, given a farce of a trial, shot, 
and his property confiscated. Every newspaper in the civilized world, 
outside of the Catholic press, called his execution a judicial murder. 
And every Catholic newspaper the world over stood solid in calling 
him an anarchist and in declaring his execution justifiable. Again, 
Catholic reader, I leave it to you to guess why and by whose orders 
this noble character and educator was murdered. That he was mur- 
dered, was proven two years after his death by the highest court 
in Spain which declared him innocent on every count, and ordered 
his property which had been confiscated, returned to his children. 
How is that for a taste of the Inquisition in the twentieth century? 
How would you like to get such a taste, Catholic reader? 

Most, if not all of you, are surely acquainted with the fact that 
two or three years ago in its Polish provinces, the Prussian Gov- 
ernment meted out corporal punishment to school children and fined 
and imprisoned the parents because they insisted on speaking or 
at least saying their prayers in Polish, instead of in the German 
language. I have a newspaper clipping before me which informs 
us that the pope's representative who was sent there during that 
troublesome time, had no fault to find with the Prussian govern- 
ment and thanked them for leaving the church property intact. So 

220 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

you see, Catholic reader, this deputy of the vicar of Christ did not 
mind the suffering and hardship entailed on innocent human beings, 
including little children, as long as the church property was not 
molested. These holy men, who are said to have devoted their 
lives to spiritual things only, have very sharp eyes for worldly 
riches. No doubt many readers of these lines have learned this 
by experience. 

All these things happened in the twentieth century within 
the last five or ten years. The representatives of the Ultramontane 
or Catholic party in every country where they exist, always stand 
as one man for everything reactionary and against progress. Wher- 
ever they have the power to do so, they cripple the educational 
system as much as possible. This is the case in Belgium, Russia, 
Spain, Mexico, and all other countries wholly or largely under Cath- 
olic control. Any adult person who reads the newspapers must 
know that the Russian duma or legislature is only a poor pretence 
of a real legislative body, and yet it is reported that when the 
emperor of Russia saw himself compelled to grant that small amount 
of liberty to the oppressed Russian people, the prosecutor of the 
holy Synod, in other words, the pope of the Russian Catholic church, 
first begged and then commanded the emperor not to grant so much 
liberty to the people. He resigned his post as a protest as soon as 
the duma was established. Hundreds of similar cases could be 
mentioned and very easily proven. Catholic reader, what do you 
think of the results of the activities of your church in strictly Cath- 
olic countries? How would you, Catholics who live in countries 
that were never or at least are not now controlled by Catholic or 
any other church power, like to come under such control? If you 
decide that you would not like such conditions to exist in the country 
you live in, you must help to protect the liberties you now enjoy 
by watching the actions of the Catholic priesthood, as well as those 
of other enemies of liberty and education. Nor must you, Catholic 
reader, permit them to use you, under the pretence of working for 
the church as an instrument to deprive you and your children, as 
well as others, of the rights and liberties you hold so dear. If you 
do not, you will feel sorry when it is too late. Think for yourself, 
Catholic reader, and refuse to obey any demands of such a nature 
should they be given to you. So much for what the Catholic church 
has done for European countries and such countries on the Ameri- 
can continent where the Catholic church once ruled or still rules. 

Let us now see how matters stand in the United States and 
Canada, as far as education is concerned. The Roman Catholic 
hierarchy and priesthood in the United States and Canada are bit- 
terly opposed to the public school system. For proof, read the fol- 
lowing answers given by the Jesuit priest, James Conway: Answer 
to Question 45 — "While state education removes illiteracy and puts 

221 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

a limited amount of knowledge within the reach of all, it cannot be 
said to have a beneficial influence on civilization in general. "Ig- 
norance and superstition, not education are in this holy man's opin- 
ion the factors that bring about civilization. 

Answer to Question 52 — "The state cannot justly enforce compul- 
sory education, even in the case of utter illiteracy, as long as the 
essential physical and moral education are sufficiently provided for.." 
Answer to Question 89 — Catholic parents cannot, in conscience, send 
their children to American public schools, except for very grave 
reasons approved by the ecclesiastical authorities. " 

Next, read this: According to a western weekly, the following 
circular was distributed in the crowd in New York that welcomed 
Cardinal Farley when he returned from Rome : 

"As the obligation of sending children to the Catholic schools 
is very important, it follows that failing to comply with it, being 
a mortal sin, is matter for confession. Parents, therefore, who delib- 
erately omit to accuse themselves of this sin do not make an entire 
confession, and consequently receive the sacrament of pennance sac- 
rilegiously. 

"The foregoing regulations hold good also in the case of guard- 
ians. Children who, by importuning their parents, go to non-Catholic 
schools, should not be absolved or allowed to receive holy com- 
munion unless they promise to ask their parents to allow them to 
return to the Catholic school." 

The above is an abstract from a recent letter written by the 
archbishop of Cincinnati to the clergy and laity of the archdiocese 
of Cincinnati. How is this, Catholic reader, for expressing contempt 
for the public school and real education? These holy grafters, are 
afraid that your children might learn too much. Should such people 
or those who blindly obey them be trusted with even the least im- 
portant position connected with the public school system? Any 
honest person must answer this question with no. The above is 
only one-hundredth part of similar evidence on hand. 

Now that you have their own words as proof that the pope and 
his priests are enemies of the public schools in the United States 
at least, I shall point out to you, Catholic reader, how they are 
working to destroy or, if that is not possible, to undermine the sys- 
tem of public education. They will ask you, Catholic voters of the 
United States, to cast your vote for those candidates for office, 
Catholic or non-Catholic, whom they can trust to use their voting 
or appointive power in the interest of the Roman Catholic hier- 
archy and retrogression. In other words, you are asked to vote for 
men who, in their official capacity will work or vote against the 
public school system and consequently against progress, and en- 
lightenment. Within the last twelve years, they have been very 
successful in having mayors, governors, presidents, and other offic- 

222 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

ials use their appointative and voting power in their favor. In 
several cases, priests and nuns have been appointed teachers and 
school superintendents. According to reliable reports the Roman 
hierarchy or priesthood when once in control of state or city school 
boards revise school books, especially history to suit their purpose. 
When and wherever possible, Catholic or non-Catholic servants of the 
pope are appointed to the positions of school principals and teachers. 
In several states, Catholic nuns in their nunly garb are permitted to 
teach in the public school. In New York City, the Catholic teachers 
have been permitted to use the public schools after school hours to 
teach the Catholic religion to all those who wish to be taught. There 
is, in my opinion, no doubt whatever that these special efforts by 
Catholics to get control over the public schools is inspired by the 
priesthood, and that those who fill the position are instructed and 
expected to work for the interest of the church, as they call it. I 
personally know of one case where a Catholic member of the school 
board was told by the priest to vote for a Catholic for superintendent 
of schools, although the man was unfit for the position, while his 
opponent was a very able man. When the man refused to do the 
priest's bidding, the priest told him that he was not a good Catholic. 
I also know of a Catholic principal of a public school who advised 
parents to send their children to a nearby parochial school. Accord- 
ing to newspaper reports, they succeeded in Canada in one case at 
least in turning a public school, including the building, into a paroch- 
ial school and into the full control of the Roman Catholic priesthood. 
Everywhere in the United States, Catholics and Catholics only, fight 
against the state, supplying school books free to the pupils, and in 
several states they have succeeded in their unholy work. The priests 
and leading laymen use the argument that it is unfair to tax Catholics 
who support parochial schools to buy books for public schools. Their 
interest in you in that respect is nothing more than a pretence, for 
while these self-styled representatievs of God and supposed friends 
of yours pretend to worry about the few pennies that would go from 
each individual Catholic taxpayer towards buying school books, they 
would not object to these same people giving every cent they possess 
in support of the relic or mass reading swindle. If you do not be- 
lieve me, Catholic reader, go and offer them large sums, including 
your last dollar, and see if they do not take it. Give this your earn- 
est consideration. 

Education, Catholic reader, is that which makes or unmakes a 
people, or a nation, and, therefore, is a very important matter. When 
we look over the rank and file of the people in the countries mention- 
ed, where for centuries the Catholic system of education or no educa- 
tion has been in operation, and then turn our eyes to countries, 
where public schools exist, such as England, Germany, France, Swed- 
en, and last, but not least, the United States of America, we find 

223 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

ample proof for the truth of the above assertion. Which standard of 
the two would you, Catholic reader, select for your children, that of 
the Spanish or Mexican peon or that of the public school graduate 
of any of the countries not under Catholic control? If you choose the 
former standard, assist your priest in denouncing and undermining 
the public schools, but if you choose the latter standard, it is your 
duty to denounce the policy of the Catholic church and to protect the 
public schools with all your might. 

The public schools are less ungodly than the parochial schools 
for the reason that they are the greater factor of the two for implanting 
and nourishing brotherly feeling. Where children of all races and 
creeds meet on common ground, as is the case in the public school, 
each learns by actual experience that the other fellow is just as human 
as he himself, and hatred and malice toward those of other races and 
creeds disappear from the hearts of the young. The segregation 
or separation of one creed and generally one nationality in the paroch- 
ial schools must have and undoubtedly has the very opposite effect. 
Watch a boy coming from a parochial school who meets a Jew or 
one of a different race from his own and observe his behavior toward 
the other. Then watch a public school boy meet the same party and 
see what he does. In nine cases out of ten, the former will annoy 
the Jew or stranger, while the latter will pass him without that 
thought even entering his mind. Furthermore, a large majority of 
nun-teachers are absolutely unfit to teach children of a higher grade 
than the first two. They did not receive a proper education them- 
selves, and consequently cannot impart to others what they do not 
know themselves. In very many instances, the parents are well 
aware of the fact that their children are not learning what they should 
and many bright children who wish to learn as much as possible beg 
their parents to permit them to go to a public school. I know per- 
sonally of many cases of that kind. The dread of excommunication, 
refusal of confession and communion are used as clubs to keep those 
children from leaving the parochial school. The large amount of 
time taken up by saying prayers and reading and discussing other 
religious humbug is so much time wasted which can never be re- 
gained. Furthermore, that part of history which the pope and his 
underlings do not want the people to know and other important mat- 
ters are to my knowledge not taught to the parochial school scholars 
even by those who are able to teach properly, for the church will not 
permit it. If you think that religious teaching in school makes bet- 
ter men and women in after life, go to the jails and state prisons, 
Catholic reader, and inquire as to what school the inmates have 
attended, and you will find that the so-called ungodly public school 
does not turn out the majority of the wrongdoers. The rest is easy 
to guess. The education derived in any public school in which the 
fountain of knowledge has not as yet been poisoned by the enemies of 

224 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

real education is positively superior to that derived in any parochial 
school. 

Last, but not least, let me ask you, Catholic reader, to cease look- 
ing upon the Reform or Protestant movement as the work of the devil 
and an enemy to anything that is good and right. Movements of that 
kind can arise and develop only then when existing conditions make 
their existence necessary. The movement which turned into the 
Christian religion was a reform movement, and Christ was crucified 
for starting and developing it. The Reform or Protestant movement 
was not the work of one man or a small number of men. It had its 
beginning and developed just as many other reform movements 
before and since have come into being. Had the conditions at that 
time not been so as to necessitate such a movement, the Reformation 
would have made little headway. If that movement had not succeed- 
ed as it did, the Catholics of the United States and other countries 
now free or nearly free from religious intolerance, would either have 
no schools at all, or at least less numerous than now, and the education 
derived therein of a much lower standard than it is today in the 
parochial schools. For proof, I ask you again, Catholic reader, to 
cast your eyes over any and all the countries still wholly or largely 
under the control of the Catholic church, Roman or otherwise. In 
some of these countries, it is to this day a crime to seek or give an 
education. The existence of the public schools compel the Catholic 
priesthood to provide similar institutions to keep those whom they 
have still in their clutches as much as possible from attending the 
public schools and eventually escaping from their control. For the 
Catholic church to do otherwise would be equal to committing 
suicide. 

There is no doubt at all in my mind that the adulteration of the 
public school system is intended, and that in many cities and states, 
the enemies of real education have already been partly successful. 
When you see the outspoken, bitter enemy of any institution trying 
hard to fill every official position in that same institution, you may 
rest assured that it is not the intention of the enemy to protect the 
thing he seeks control of, but that it is his firm intention to destroy 
it. For instance, Catholic reader, if you saw the outspoken, bitter 
enemies of the parochial school trying hard to get control of its 
management, could you believe that this enemy intended to and 
would work, if in control, for the good of the parochial school, which 
he despises? Or would you not consider it more likely that the 
enemy intended and, if enabled, would work for the destruction of 
the thing he hated? Indeed you would. The outspoken enemy of 
the public school, who seeks control of its management can have no 
other purpose in view and cannot be expected to act any different if 
in control of affairs than the enemy of the parochial school would do. 
It is, therefore, the duty of every man and woman who believes that 

225 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

his or her children should get the best education possible, to be on 
guard and to work with might and main to keep the enemies of 
the public school system from getting control thereof, yes, even from 
holding the least important position to be held under the public school 
management. 

Any person who accepts a position of trust, from teacher to 
state or national superintendent of schools with the express purpose 
of destroying or undermining the public school system is not only a 
traitor to his country, but a traitor to the human race. The same 
applies to any public official who knowingly appoints such people to 
such positions. I appeal to all Catholic men and women in the United 
States not to permit anyone, no matter who it might be, to use them 
as a tool to destroy or cripple the most efficient school system in exist- 
ence. If the public school system is once destroyed or corrupted, 
the enemy of real education and progress will positively do its utmost 
to deprive the youth of the land of a proper education, to obstruct 
progress as much as possible, and rob us of the blood-bought liberties 
we now enjoy. Should it ever come to this, you, Catholic reader, and 
your children and your children's children will be the sufferers, as 
well as the non-Catholics or heretics, as you may term them. If you 
wish, that the standard of education be raised instead of lowered, if 
you prize the liberties you now enjoy, it is your duty to work hand 
in hand with the friends of real education and progress by voting for 
men and women for public office who will preserve and improve the 
educational facilities, and not for those who would destroy or corrupt 
such a priceless jewel, irrespective of what their religion might be. 
My Catholic friends, the club in the hands of a Catholic, if it strikes 
you, will hurt you just as much as if a non-Catholic had wielded it. 
So will wrong done by the most pious Catholic in the educational 
line hurt your children and your children's children just as much as 
if the bitterest enemy of Catholicity had done it. Beware of such 
friends, Catholic reader. Awake from your intellectual slumber be- 
fore it is too late. 

The Catholic hierarchy as a body detests education for the com- 
mon people, but especially for its own followers. For proof that the 
Catholic church is not anxious that your children should learn much, 
read the following from an address given by Rev. James Conway, 
S. J., of Canisious College, Buffalo, N. Y. I quote from the third 
edition published by Benziger Brothers, Printers to the Holy Apos- 
tolic See : 

"The State cannot justly enforce compulsory education, even in 
case of utter illiteracy, as long as the essential physical and moral 
education are sufficiently provided for. No government, whether 
State or municipal, can justly tax the people at large for the support 
of an institution, whether high school, academy, or college, which 
pretends to give a higher than a merely elementary education, a 

226 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

tolerably correct use of the vernacular in writing and speech, a fac- 
ility in doing ordinary sums, and such other useful elementary knowl- 
edge as can be conveniently, engrafted on these branches." 

In the opinion of the Catholic priesthood, anything is good 
enough for the common herd. Wrongdoers do not want the light of 
truth to illuminate their deeds. Form your own opinion, Catholic 
reader. 

I appeal to all, Catholic parents, to take their children out of the 
parochial school, and to send them to a public school where half their 
time is not wasted with religious humbug. What paris green is to 
the stomach, parochial school education is to the brain. Do not be 
afraid of the threats of excommunication, of no sacrament, no con- 
secrated burial ground, and so forth, for that all amounts to nothing. 
You will not be one iota the worse or the better for it. The curses 
and the blessings of the priest or pope have just as much weight as 
yours or mine would have, and they have no weight at all. These 
so-called holy men who make a very good living at your expense, 
use all means to scare you and thereby make you more obedient. 
Refuse to be fooled any longer, Catholic reader, and show the grafting 
priesthood as well as the world at large that you are not the simple- 
ton they think you are. It is true that the Catholic clergy like a 
humble and obedient member of their flock better than one not 
so, but they will respect one person who will not blindly obey them 
more than a hundred that will. You would do the same if you were 
in their stead. No one can or will respect a fool or a coward. Think 
over this important educational question, Catholic reader; join in the 
future the forces which are working to improve and extend the edu- 
cational facilities to every race and creed the world over, and desert 
the enemies of real education and progress, no matter who they 
might be. 

I have shown you, Catholic reader, how and when the popes re- 
ceived their supposedly great power and infallibility. I shall now 
prove to you by their own acts how infallible they really are. Accord- 
ing to historians, Pope Celestin V who abdicated in December 1294 
was promptly cast into prison by his successor, Boniface VIII, and 
all his acts and grants annulled. This shows not only how infallible 
Pope Celestin must have been, but also how much respect Pope 
Boniface had for the supposed Vicar of Christ who had preceded him. 
Many other popes annulled the acts of their predecessors. Joan of 
Arc, a girl of seventeen years, was burned by the Catholic church as 
a witch, May 30, 1431. In the twentieth century, the same supposed- 
ly only true and infallible church declares that she was a saint and 
not a witch. This is another sample of the pope's infallibility. To 
believe in witches or witchcraft is today known to be nothing more 
than an imagination of a diseased brain, and a demand to punish 

227 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

anyone for being a witch would be laughed at, and the party who 
made it declared insane. 

Yet pope after pope during the Middle Ages not only permitted 
but ordered the burning of witches, and at their command many thou- 
sands of innocent people were tortured and burned for the crime of 
being witches. In 1456, two witches were burned in Cologne, Ger- 
many, for causing such a frost in May that all vegetation was blasted. 
In 1586, the Archbishop of Treves at the Phalz burned one hundred 
and eighteen women and two men for causing cold weather in the 
Spring, thereby prolonging winter. This was done not only with 
the consent but at the command of the then reigning pope. What 
do you think of these supposed-to-be infallible vicars of Christ who 
did not know that such a thing was impossible for any human being 
to do, and what about that Holy Ghost who is supposed to guide them 
in all their actions and in every word they speak? 

Other so-called witches were burned for causing humans or 
animals to be sick. In the sixteenth century, several bishops in Ger- 
many burned as many as nine hundred people in three months. One 
Paramo, a high church official, boasted that the holy office, which 
means the pope, had burned in one and one-half century, thirty thou- 
sand witches. It being a fact that witches never existed, every per- 
son burned as a witch was absolutely innocent of any wrong-doing. 
Think what that means, Catholic reader. Early in the seventh cen- 
tury, the pope burned in the city of Rome a man by the name of 
Riodino Bruno as a heretic for teaching that the world was not flat, 
but a globe, and that it moved around the sun. Through progress 
that has been made since, the pope and priesthood are today com- 
pelled to teach that very thing to the children in their godly parochial 
schools. The church thereby acknowledges that the man she burned 
less than three hundred years ago as a heretic had told the truth, in 
other words, that he was not a heretic or wrongdoer but a benefactor 
of the human race. These are a few examples of the pope's infalli- 
bility, Catholic reader. Many hundreds of such men and their writ- 
ings were destroyed by fire and other means, and the world is much 
poorer in knowledge on that account. That is how the Catholic 
church has contributed to the progress of the world and to civilization 
in general. How would you like to get a taste of the pope's infallibil- 
ity, Catholic reader? Help the pope to get the power he seeks and 
such treatment will undoubtedly again be instore for Catholics as well 
as non-Catholics. 

These few instances out of thousands of others that could be 
mentioned should prove to anyone that the pope's claim of infallibil- 
ity, like many other claims, is a fraud, pure and simple. It is time for 
you, Catholic reader, to be wise to these deceivers. Your intellect 
and your pocketbook will benefit greatly, if you cut loose from these 
holy grafters. An ex-priest by the name of Jeremiah Crowley, a man 

228 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

of sterling character, who was a Roman Catholic priest for twenty-one 
years, and who was never excommunicated, wrote two books, one 
entitled "The Parochial School a Menace to the Nation," and the 
other "The Pope Chief of White Slavers, High Priest of Intrigue." 
The titles of both of these books strongly intimate what the books 
contain. In the first named book, Mr. Crowley tells of the formation 
of a "Catholic Laymen's Association" in the city of Chicago" for the 
protection of Catholic mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters from 
priestly lust." According to Mr. Crowley's book, this association, 
under date "Chicago, January 4, 1902" addressed to Cardinal Martin- 
elli, Delegate Apostolic, Washington, D. C, a memorial reciting a few 
of the priestly outrages and saying : 

"It is only because these enormities have grown to such frightful 
proportions as to threaten the very sanctity of our homes and to make 
every Catholic man, with wife and daughters, shudder to reflect that 
they or their friends are exposed to such dangers, and that such un- 
speakable shame is brought upon their Holy Mother church." 

This memorial is said to have been signed by men representing 
nearly every Catholic parish in the Archdiocese of Chicago and was 
supported by resolution adopted and signed by a number of other 
priests, whom Mr. Crowley names and is on file at the Vatican. Mr. 
Crowley challenges the Catholic hierarchy or priesthood from the 
pope down to prove one word he said therein about the popes, priests, 
or nuns to be untrue, and offers to pay the sum of Ten Thousand 
Dollars and to surrender the plates for his books if they can do so. 
What do you say to this, Catholic reader? Why don't these holy 
men accept that challenge? Instead a mob, which undoubtedly con- 
sisted mainly or wholly of Catholics in Oilwein, Iowa, a few months 
ago attempted and nearly succeeded in murdering Mr. Crowley be- 
cause he dared to speak what the church officials do not like the 
people, especially their own followers, to hear. Mobbing and boycot- 
ting, Catholic reader, are apparently the only arguments that that 
holy Catholic and infallible church uses to defend herself. Do you 
believe, that Christ who reproved Peter for drawing the sword, and 
stopped the stoning of a prostitute would use or even indorse such 
tactics in his name and in defense of his religion? Do you believe 
that a true religion needs such arguments? Think this over, Catholic 
reader. Christ said, "He who uses the sword, shall perish by the 
sword." If the members of the Roman Catholic priesthood had 
remembered that saying and had acted according to the advice given 
therein, many millions of innocent people would not have suffered 
cruel torture and death, and the record of the Catholic church as a 
whole would not be as black as it is. 

The difference in length between this talk and those held with 
the Jews and Protestants will no doubt be pointed at by many priests 
and lay members of the church and interpreted as an overdose of 

229 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

hatred on the part of the writer for the Catholic church. Nothing, 
Catholic reader, is further from the truth. Since early boyhood, it 
has been my policy to defend what I thought was right and to de- 
nounce what I knew was wrong. When I believed that religion 
generally was right, I defended the Roman Catholic church, of which 
I was a member, at every opportunity and to the best of my ability. 
Since I am convinced that religion of all descriptions is at its best 
only a bogy man's story, I denounce all religions, the Catholic brand 
included. In this talk, Catholic reader, I have only touched upon 
those points which I considered of greatest importance and most 
necessary for you to be enlightened upon. If I wanted to say all that 
could be said about the doings of the Catholic church and its leaders, 
this alone would make a book three times the size of this one. Fur- 
thermore, Catholic reader, I speak to you as a friend, not as a foe. 
I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and would be one this very 
day, if my conscience would permit me. The true and only reasons 
why my talk with the Catholics is much longer than with the Jews 
and Protestants are the following: Neither the Jews, Protestants, 
nor any other church under the sun outside of the Catholic church 
claims, first, that her priests are in some respects equal and even 
above God in power, and that their nature is completely changed after 
they become priests ; second, that the pope or head official of the 
church is infallilble and the supreme ruler and judge over the thoughts 
and acts of every human creature on this earth ; third, that her priests 
can turn a bread wafer into a living, supernatural Being, called God ; 
fourth, that her priests should be exempt from trial in a civil court; 
fifth, that the church through her priesthood has a right to use force 
in propagating her doctrine, and that no civil authority has a right to 
set any limit thereto ; sixth, that the state has no right to tolerate any 
other than the Catholic religion ; seventh, that the church has a right 
to dictate from beginning to end the policy of the public schools; 
eighth, that the civil law is in all things inferior to the ecclesastical 
law, and that the church and state should be united ; ninth, that her 
priests are the only people on the earth who can perform a bona fide 
marriage ; tenth, that she possesses holy bones, pieces of a cross, and 
other so-called relics which have healing power. These and other 
similar ones too numerous to mention are the reasons why my talk 
with the Catholics is much longer than that with those of other 
religious creeds, no matter what your priest or anyone else might tell 
you to the contrary. 

In conclusion, Catholic reader, I say without hesitation that the 
Catholic priesthood as a body, with a few individual exceptions, is 
the boldest conglomeration of grafters that I have ever known, and I 
dare them to bring me into a court of law to prove it to them. Yes, 
I go further than that. I here and now declare that the organization 
which parades under the name Roman Catholic church is nothing 

230 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

more or less than an international political machine operating under 
the cloak of religion, whose sole object it is to gain temporal power 
over all the world, to domineer over the conscience of all human 
creatures, to suppress free speech and press and to amass worldly 
riches. 

In my opinion, all religions are frauds and the preachers of all 
creeds preach for what there is in it for them, but the opportunity 
the Catholic church offers for graft out-rivals all the others. It is a 
case of starting to pay when you are born, pay all through life, and 
as many years after your death as your money or your relative's 
money will reach. Almost anything for money; nothing without it. 
Is this not true, Catholic reader? I personally know of one priest 
who had less than $200. when he arrived in the United States ; twelve 
years later he had a deposit of $62,000 in one bank. I know of another 
who within eighteen years amassed a fortune of $100,000 in real 
estate. What is true with these two is true with thousands of other 
priests and prelates. The business of being a Catholic priest seems 
to be a profitable one . There is no question at all in my mind that 
many who study for the priesthood select that vocation because of 
the chances it offers to make money. I feel equally certain that 
many Protestant ministers would gladly become Catholic priests and 
bring their congregation with them, for that very same reason. But 
there are also many good men in the priesthood who are disgusted 
with the methods of the Catholic church. If you, Catholic reader, 
knew how many priests quietly leave the priesthood on that account, 
you would be very much surprised. I personally know of at least 
fifty who are today engaged in other lines of business. The managers 
of the Catholic church take good care to keep you in ignorance of 
these happenings. 

For proof that the Catholic church does claim the things I men- 
tioned and much more, read the following evidence from the best 
Catholic authorities : 

(1) Does the Catholic Church Teach That the Priest Is Equal 
and in Some Respects above God in Power? 

"The rulers of the earth issue commands, but a greater power 
far is given to the priests of God. Every day, in the sacrifice of mass, 
he can say to the Son of God, Come down from heaven ! and immedi- 
ately Christ obeys, comes and meekly rests on our altars, within the 
little chalics or the gold cibodium. What earthly power can vie with 
this, or might I add, what heavenly power either? The rulers of this 
world have power to open and close the prison gates on earth, but the 
priest can open and close the gates of heaven and hell. An earthly 
judge can restore alone the innocent to freedom, but the priest can 
give that blessing even to the guilty. Go, therefore, where you will, 

231 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

to heaven or through this earth, you can only find one created being 
who can forgive the sinner, and that being is the Catholic priest." 

According to a western weekly, the above extract is taken from 
a sermon, preached by a young priest, Pappy Gildea, of Donegal, at 
Button Port, Ireland, August 5, 1896. 

(2) Does the Catholic Church Claim the Right to Dictate the 
Policy of the Public Schools? 

"The church has the right to interfere in the discipline of the 
public schools, and in the arrangements of the studies of the public 
schools. 

"Public schools open to all children for the education of the young, 
should be under the control of the church, and should not be subject 
to the civil power nor made to conform to the opinions of the age." 
— From Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864. 

(3) Does the Catholic Church Permit Freedom of Conscience 
And Is She More Tolerant Today Than She Was of Old? 

Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on human liberty, June 20, 1888, 
said: 

"It is in no wise permitted to demand, defend, or grant liberty of 
thought or of the press, of teaching or of religion." 

Read this over carefully, Catholic reader, and then consider what 
these words imply. The same pope, in his Encyclical to France, 
February 16, 1892, speaks of the false principle of separating church 
and state. Cardinal Gibbons says in "The Faith of Our Fathers," 
page 269, "Religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler when it would 
do more harm to the state to repress it." According to a western 
weekly, the "Pittsburg Observer," a Catholic paper, in its January 9, 
1913 issue, in speaking of a woman who was brought up in the Cath- 
olic faith and trained in a parochial school, but who married a Pro- 
testant, joined a Protestant church, and is raising her family as 
Protestants, says : "The harlot or drunken woman is a model of 
virtue compared to her." Have you still any doubt, Catholic reader, 
that the church would today as of old torture and murder people for 
daring to think for themselves ? This is well worth considering. 

(4) Does the Catholic Church Claim to Be Above the State and 
Is She More Tolerant Than of Old? 

Read the following taken from the syllabus of Pope Pius IX: 
"The state has not the right to leave every man free to profess 
the religion he thinks true. The state has not the right to deny to 
the church the use of force. It has not the right to exclude the pope or 
the priest from control of temporal matters. It has not the right to 
abolish monasteries and convents. The state has not the right to up- 
hold any marriage solemnized otherwise than according to the tenets 
of the Council of Trent. The state has not the right to tolerate any 

232 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

other religion but the Catholic. The state has not the right to permit 
free expression of opinion." 

The above speaks for itself, Catholic reader. 

(5) Is It True That the Pope Wants to Get Control over the 
United States of America? 

According to a western weekly, Dr. O. A. Brownson, the ablest 
writer which Rome has ever had in this country, said in his Review : 
"Undoubtedly it is the intention of the pope to possess this country. 
In this intention he is aided by the Jesuits and by all the Catholic 
prelates and priests." 

Is that plain enough, Catholic reader? 

According to the same paper Archbishop Ireland, at the Roman 
Catholic Congress in Baltimore, November, 1889, said : 

"Our work is to make America Catholic. If we love America, if 
we love the church, to mention the word suffices. Our cry shall be, 
"God wills it!" and our hearts shall leap with crusader enthusiasm!"" 

Look up the meaning of the word crusade, Catholic reader. This 
will indicate to you the methods they expect to employ in their work 
of making America Catholic. 

(6) Is the Catholic Church in Politics and Are Catholics Elec- 
ted to Office Expected to Work in That Capacity for the 
Interests of the Catholic Church? 

Cardinal Wiseman, at Malines, Belgium, in 1863, said: 
All Roman Catholic England only sent one member to the House 
of Commons in 1852. Yet we did not despair. We observed that 
the electors were divided between two parties, and they found that by 
combining their strength, and then bringing it to bear in favor of one 
side or the other, they could cause that side to succeed which appear- 
ed the more disposed to do them justice. Thus we have taught thei 
two parties in the state to count the power of the Roman Catholics as 
something." 

From "The Catholic World" : 

"The Roman Catholic, like the church, is one and the same in all 
ages and all times. The most obvious, interesting, and important 
view of the Roman Catholic in his relations to the century is that ofi 
voting. We do not hesitate to affirm that in performing our duties 
as citizens, electors, and public officers, we should always and under 
all circumstances act simply as Roman Catholics; that we should be 
governed and directed by immutable principles of our religion, and 
should take dogmatic faith and the conclusions drawn from it, as ex- 
pressed and defined in Roman Catholic philosophy, theology, and 
morality, as the only rule of our private, public, and political con- 
duct." Is that clear enough for you, Catholic reader? 

Should men who will act thus when in public office be trusted 
with the affairs of state in any country, but especially in a country 

233 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

free or nearly free from religious control and intolerance? Can you 
blame non-Catholics for not wanting Catholics elected to public 
office? 

(7) Is It True That the Pope Claims to Be the Supreme Ruler 
and Judge over the Actions and Thoughts of Every Human 
Being the World over? 

Cardinal Manning, speaking in the name of the Pope, in "Sermons 
on Religious Subjects," 1873, says: 

"I acknowledge no civil power; I am the subject of no prince, 
and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge and the 
director of the consciences of men ; I am sole, last, supreme judge of 
what is right and wrong." 

The Cannon Law of the papal or Catholic church says : "We de- 
clare, say, define, and pronounce it to be altogether necessary to 
salvation, that every human creature should be subject to the Roman 
pontiff." 

Do you see, Catholic reader, that the pope and through him the 
Roman Catholic church claims the right to think for all of us, and 
pronounces it a crime on our part to think for ourselves? Consider 
what that means. 

(8) Here, Catholic Women, Take Notice. 

According to a western weekly, the late Pope Pius X made the 
following statement as a reply to a request made by a delegation of 
progressive Italian women, who asked him for recognition of their 
equal rights as human beings: 

"After creating man, God created woman and determined her 
mission, namely, that of being man's companion, helpmate and con- 
solation. It is a mistake, therefore, to maintain that woman's rights 
are the same as man's. Woman, created as man's companion, must 
so remain — under the power of love and affection, but always under 
his power." 

How do you like this interpretation of your rights as human 
beings, Catholic women? Now, listen to this: 

According to a western weekly, the priest editor of a Catholic 
paper called "The Western Watchman," had the following to say of 
women : 

"It is a woman's duty to get married and beget children. She 
should always either be nursing or carrying a child; this would keep 
her busy." 

Catholic women, do you see that today, as of old, the Catholic 
church considers you nothing more than man's slave and an instru- 
ment to provide the priesthood with humble followers ? But if that is 
the duty of women, how about nuns? Are they not women? Think 
over this, Catholic women and men alike. 

234 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

(9) For proof that the membership of Catholic organizations is 
used to influence lawmakers to act in the interest of the 
Catholic church, read the following which, according to a 
western paper, is taken from the report of the legislative 
committee of the German Catholic Federation of Illinois: 

"It was the duty of the secretary to secure copies of all bills 
introduced in either branch of the legislature. During the session 
just closed over 1,600 bills were introduced in both houses of the 
General Assembly. The local members of the committee were kept 
busy studying these bills from January 29 until the close of the 
session. 

"The committee kept up a continual correspondence with the 
most Reverend Archbishop and the Right Reverend Bishop of the 
Province. In doing so the committee intended at all times to proceed 
along lines sanctioned by the hierarchy. ,, 

"While none of the vocational school bills passed the two houses, 
the parochial school gained a significant victory. The senate com- 
mittee on education reported out Mr. Cooley's bill, while the house 
committees, not being able to agree, reported out both bills that they 
lie on the speaker's table. This victory is ample proof for the esteem 
in which our organization is held by the lawmakers." 

Does the above sound as if the Catholic church is in politics, and 
that the organizations are used to influence public officials? 

(10) Does the pope and through him the Roman Catholic church 
claim the right and power to depose and exterminate heretic 
princes, kings, and other government heads, as well as other 
so-called heretics, and are the priests, especially the Jesuits, 
oathbound to assist him in this work? 

Under this heading, I shall give you abstracts from what is 
claimed to be the oath which the Jesuits take when being installed 
as priests : 

"I, , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed 

Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy apostles, St. 
Peter and St. Paul, and all the Saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to 
you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, 
founded by St. Ignatius Loyala, in the pontification of Paul the III, 
and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the 
matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that 
his Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's vice-regent and is the true and only 
head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and 
that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given his Holiness 
by my Savior Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, 
princes, states, commonwealths, and governments, and they may be 
safely destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shall de- 
fend this doctrine and his Holiness' right and custom against all 

235 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially 
the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and 
Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England 
and Scotland, and the branches of the same now established in Ire- 
land, and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adher- 
ents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the 
sacred Mother Church of Rome. 

"I do now denounce and disown any allegiance to any heretical 
king, prince, or state named Protestant or Liberals, or obedience to 
any of their laws, magistrates, or officers. 

"I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity 
presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly against 
all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do to ex- 
tirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare 
neither age, sex, nor condition, and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil 
flay, strangle, and bury alive, these infamous heretics; rip up the 
stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infant's heads 
against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That 
when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poison- 
ous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poinard, or the leaden 
bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the 
person or persons, whatever may be their position in life, either 
public or private, as I at any time may be directed to do, by any 
agent of the Pope, or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father 
of the Society of Jesus." 

The people who are said to take the oath, from which these 
abstracts are taken, call their organization "The Society of Jesus." 
Can you believe, Catholic reader, that that humble and loving Jesus 
would have anything in common with an oath of that kind or the 
people who take it? Think this over, Catholic reader, and form your 
own opinion. The above alleged oath has been printed time and 
again in different newspapers, and I am sure this could not be done 
without coming in conflict with the Postal or Criminal Laws 
if the oath printed in the papers was not the correct one. The oaths 
of cardinals, bishops, and priests are said to be very similar to the 
Jesuitical oath. Read all the facts given throughout this talk very 
carefully, Catholic reader, and then form your own conclusion. Every 
one of the authorities quoted is a reliable one. If the men or papers 
mentioned had not expressed the opinion of the Catholic church as a 
whole, they would be quickly called to account. 

In conclusion, read this, Catholic reader, and see what you think 
of it: 

Church and State — A Catholic View. 

According to a western weekly, Dr. G. F. Van Schulte, a pro- 
fessor of Canonical Law at Prague, states succinctly the relation of 
church and state, from a Roman Catholic view-point as follows : 

236 



Personal Talk to the Catholics 

1. All human power is from evil and must therefore be stand- 
ing under the pope. 

2. The temporal powers must act, unconditionally, and in ac- 
cordance with the orders of the spiritual. 

3. The pope has the right to give countries and nations which 
are non-Catholic to Catholic regents who can reduce them to slavery. 

4. The pope can make slaves of those Christian subjects whose 
prince of ruling power is interdicted by the pope. 

5. The laws of the church concerning the liberty of papal power 
are based upon divine inspiration. 

6. The church has the right to practise unconditional censure 
of books. 

7. The pope has the right to annul state laws, treaties, con- 
stitutions, and so forth, to absolve from obedience thereto, as soon 
as they seem detrimental to the rights of the church or those of the 
clergy. 

Does this sound as if the pope claims to be the sole ruler of every- 
thing on earth ? Do you see, Catholic reader, that you dare not read 
what you like or think for yourself? 

Also read this from Den's Theology, a Roman Catholic text- 
book, which says : "It is the duty of the Roman Catholic church to 
compel heretics, by corporal punishment, to submit to her faith." 

Do you see, Catholic reader, what liberal minded Catholics as 
well as non-Catholics may expect if the pope ever regains the power 
he once had and now seeks? I advise you, Catholic reader, to read 
the evidence given above very carefully and get the full meaning 
thereof. I will also state that the evidence given here to substantiate 
the assertions I made throughout this talk is only a small portion of 
what I have in my posession, and if requested, I shall furnish any 
information pertaining to the subjects treated in this work. Do not 
hesitate to ask for it. 

I feel confident, Catholic reader, that I have furnished sufficient 
evidence to convince any fair-minded Catholic man or woman that 
the Catholic religion is no more of godly origin than any other 
system of religion under the sun ; that the Catholic priests and nuns 
are in every respect just as human after they join the priesthood or 
nunnery as before; that the popes infallibility claim is a fraud, pure 
and simple; that a very large portion of what the Catholic church 
teaches as the truth is not the truth ; that there is absolutely no rea- 
son for people of one race or creed to hate those of another race or 
creed ; and that religion of all descriptions, the Catholic included, has 
proven itself a curse to the human race. I, therefore, appeal to you 
again, Catholic reader, to begin to do your own thinking, to throw 
aside all religious and race hatred, and to join in a movement based 
on truth and common sense and designed to bring about real and 
lasting peace and good will on earth. 

237 



CHAPTER VIII 

Personal Talk to All the Protestants the World Over. 

Under this heading, I shall address myself to all denominations 
who term themselves Christians, but not affiliated with either the 
Roman, Greek, or Russian Catholic Church. I assure all Protestant 
readers that if I use plain language and expressions in telling what 
I have to say that no insult or ridicule is intended. It simply means 
that I want to tell the unvarnished truth in a straight-forward manner, 
without fear or favor. My sole object in having this personal talk 
with all Protestants is to acquaint them with the fact that while all 
Protestant denominations, even the most orthodox one, have discarded 
many of the superstitious doctrines still preached by the old-style 
or Orthodox Christian creeds, the teachings of the Protestant relig- 
ion as a whole is far from being free from error and superstitious 
doctrines, and is no more the handiwork of a God, as described to 
us, than any other system of religion in existence. Although pro- 
testors against the superstitious teachings and corrupt practices of 
what is known today as the Catholic church, and Protestant organ- 
izations, existed long before the early part of the sixteenth century, 
the Protestant movement of today did not have its beginning until 
that time. We shall therefore commence our talk with the beginning 
of the Reformation. 

Since it is generally acknowledged that Martin Luther was the 
Father of the Reformation, let us turn our attention to the part he 
took in connection therewith. There is no doubt that the ministers 
of all the Protestant churches, especially those of the Lutheran church, 
do everything to impress their followers with the idea that Martin 
Luther had stepped boldly away from the Roman church and com- 
menced forthwith his work on what is known today as the Refor- 
mation. Undoubtedly, the Protestant rank and file is also told that 
Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, and other successful reformers had been 
appointed to that work and were protected from their enemies by a 
supreme Being or God, thereby placing the stamp of godliness on 
the Protestant religion. Both the statement that Luther broke at 
once entirely away from the Catholic church and the statement 
that God had appointed Luther and other reformers, Protestant 
reader, are not the truth. The Protestant religion, like all others, 
is the handiwork of man ; no God had a hand in bringing it into 
being. George P. Fisher, D. D., Professor at Yale College, and other 

238 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

historians inform us that in 1517, when Martin Luther posted the 
ninety-five theses in opposition to the Roman Catholic church, he 
had absolutely no intention whatever of leaving the Catholic church. 
His theses were not demands, but propositions for dispute. They 
closed with the sincere and solemn declaration that he affirmed 
nothing, but left everything to the judgment of the church. In fact, 
we are told by the historian Fisher and others, that some time after 
this event, Luther made the following statement: "I allow these 
propositions to stand, that by them it may appear how weak I was, 
and in how fluctuating a state of mind, I was when I began this 
business. I was then a monk and a made Papist, ready to murder 
any person who denied obedience to the pope." This, Protestant 
reader, from Luther's own lips is proof that he had no thought of sever- 
ing his connection with the Catholic church at the time he posted 
his theses on the church door, and not for some time after. His 
sole object seems to have been to bring about some reform within 
the church. Martin Luther did not sever his connection with the 
Roman Catholic church until he burned the papal bull in 1520 or 
three years after making his first public protest. Yes, we are in- 
formed that even after that event took place, both Luther and Mel- 
anchton were willing to make some concessions in an endeavor to 
become reconciled with the church, although they had little belief 
in the possibility of a compromise or reconciliation. 

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that if the then reigning 
pope had granted all or some of the reforms proposed by Luther 
that he would have remained a loyal member of the Catholic church 
and priesthood, and he would not have become the foremost reform- 
er of his time. Instead he might have become a persecutor of re- 
formers or heretics. What Luther did toward calling the Reforma- 
tion into being, after he had made his first protest, existing cir- 
cumstances practically forced him to do. I do not speak in this man- 
ner, Protestant reader, through a desire on my part to rob Luther, 
the reformer, of even the smallest bit of credit due him. My sole 
purpose in bringing these facts to light is to make the Protestants 
the world over acquainted with the true facts of the case and de- 
stroy all inclination to hero worship where such might exist. No 
human being can reason and judge correctly until he sees things as 
they really are. The fact that Luther protested at all against the 
false teachings and corrupt practises of the Roman Hierarchy or 
priesthood proves that he was not devoid of all sense of righteous- 
ness, and that he possessed the courage to make his convictions 
known. The firm stand he took in his controversies with his enemies 
and the translating of the Bible from Latin into the language of the 
common people deserve great praise. The princes and nobles who pro- 
tected Luther from physical injury, and his advisers and comfor- 
ters, of which John Frederic, the Elector of Saxony, and Philip 

239 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

Melancthon were probably the most active and the ones most cher- 
ished by Luther himself, had undoubtedly much to do with making 
the Reformation as successful as it was. Nevertheless, to Luther 
must be given the largest amount of credit for the success of this 
epoch making movement, which was destined to break the power of 
the most bloodthirsty and most tyrannical enemy mankind ever 
knew. The courageous stand he took and the good use he made of 
his opportunities were undoubtedly some of the main factors that 
made the Reformation successful. So much for Luther, the reformer, 
and the credit due him. 

Now, Protestant reader, let us look at Luther as a man. His- 
torians tell us that Martin Luther was very intolerant toward others 
that he affirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation, that he believed 
in witchcraft, in the confessional, and in many other doctrines and 
usuages of the Roman church, which were later entirely discarded 
by the leaders of the Protestant movement. We are also told by 
G. P. Fisher and other historians that Luther was very much op- 
posed to the peasants or common people of whom many were still 
serfs or half slaves using force to gain the human rights and lib- 
erties denied them by the religious and civil lords of that time. 
The same historian tells us that Luther proclaimed that the peasants 
had no right to make an insurrection, and that he urged the princes 
to put it down with a strong hand. It is estimated that in these 
peasant wars not less than one hundred thousand lost their lives. 
The stand which Luther took in this respect, Protestant reader, was 
surely not the act of a God-inspired man. Luther undoubtedly 
acted thus not because he had no sympathy with the peasant class 
of which he himself had sprung, but solely to preserve the chances 
of his own personal safety and the success of the movement he was 
the father of. In other words, he acted as he did to keep the 
friendship of the princes and nobles who alone were able to protect 
him personally from arrest or physical injury and prevent the Protes- 
tant movement and his doctrines from being nipped in the bud. 

While it is very true that many others would have acted exactly 
as Luther did if placed in the same position, his conduct neverthe- 
less proves that as a man he was no better than millions of other men 
who are not known as great reformers. The same holds good with 
Zwingly, Calvin, Knox, and all other more or less successful re- 
formers. Most, if not all of them, practised to a greater or lesser 
extent towards those who disagreed with them the same intolerance, 
which they denounced when practised on themselves by the Roman 
hierarchy or priesthood. We are informed that Calvin excommun- 
icated people for mocking at his sermons, that he sent spies among 
the people who would report to him every unseemly word dropped 
in the street, that witchcraft and heresy were classed as capital 
crimes under his regime, and that he crowned his intolerant career 

240 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

by burning at the stake one Servitus, a Spanish scientist, for differ- 
ing with him on a single point of divinity. 

But the best proof of all that the reformers were no more the 
true representatives of an almighty and alwise supreme Being or 
God than the pope and his priests, is that each disagreed with all 
the others on many minor or unimportant and on one or more very 
important Christian doctrines. Had a God, as described to us, been 
in any way instrumental in calling them to the exalted position 
their followers see them in, or if such a God had only sympathised 
with their work for reform, he would surely have assisted each and 
all of them in knowing the true from the false even in the most un- 
important points at issue. I assure my Protestant friends of all de- 
nominations again, that in speaking in this manner, I have no inten- 
tion of diminishing the credt due any of these men. On the contrary, 
I openly and willingly admit that each and every one of them had 
some share in making the success of the Reformation a possibility, 
and my sole and only purpose in pointing these facts out to you, 
Protestant reader, is to remove all superstitious thoughts in regard 
to the origin of the Protestant religion as a whole or that particu- 
lar brand which you believe in ; in other words, to prove to you that 
no God, as described to us, had any more to do with the origin of 
the religion you believe in than with that of any other religious 
system in existence. The belief in the holiness of their leaders and 
the godly origin of their religion is the main reason why people of 
all creeds cling so firmly to the superstitious doctrines taught them 
by their clergy, and therefore deserves, in my opinion, the attention 
I gave it. 

Next, Protestant reader, let us see whether the conduct of the 
Protestant church, through its leaders, indicates that an almighty, 
just, and loving God and Father has any connection therewith. To 
find such evidence, we must turn our attention to those countries 
or territories where some Protestant division or denomination had 
full control for a reasonable length of time. 

Historians inform us that Calvin through his newly founded 
religion ruled for a period of twenty years over the city of Geneva 
with an iron hand and in a most intolerant manner. Witchcraft 
and heresy were by Calvin, as by the pope, considered and punished 
as capital crimes, and, as previously stated, one, a very learned man, 
was burned at the stake by Calvin for disagreeing with him on a 
single point. Under his rule, people committing sexual sins were 
drowned. 

In England, the Protestant church, brought into being by the 
oft married King Henry VIII, who later became its head, was, in 
its earlier stage of existence from time to time for a shorter or longer 
period in full control of afTairs, both religious and civil, and since 
1588 has been continuously in control. During the periods of Pro- 

241 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

testant reign in England as many and as dastardly crimes against 
humanity were committed as under Catholic rule. Thousands of 
people were burned as wiches and for asserting their right to 
think for themselves. As late as 1648, a law was passed by the 
English parliament making the denial of the trinity a crime punish- 
able by death. The protestants when in power used exactly the 
same implements of torture and the same methods to inflict death 
on socalled heretics that the Catholics used when they were in con- 
trol of affairs. The Iron Boot in which the victim's foot was placed 
and iron wedges driven between the sides of the boot and the foot 
until the foot was mashed to a jelly was one of the torture-instru- 
ments used by Protestants, as well as Catholics. In Sweden and 
Norway, two strictly Protestant countries with the Lutherans pre- 
dominating, according to historians, illegitimate or bastard children 
are not baptized at the same time that legitimate children have that 
supposedly holy sacrament of baptism performed on them. If this 
is not fanatism, Protestant reader, I do not know what we should 
call it, for what crime have such children committed that is deserv- 
ing of such treatment. The Puritans, also a Protestant denomin- 
ation, who had experienced what it means to be persecuted for hold- 
ing different opinions from those who were in power, and who fled 
from their native land and had established themselves in a country 
where none of their former persecutors were near and where no 
one else even thought of interfering with them in any way, practised 
the same intolerance from which they themselves had fled as soon as 
they had the power to do so. These people, who had emigrated to 
America had absolutely no valid reason for persecuting anyone, 
and yet we see those Protestants or reformers act in the most in- 
tolerant manner toward their fellow men, and enact the most cruel 
laws ever put on the statute books of any country. This happened 
in what is today known as the states of Connecticut and Massachu- 
setts in the United States of America. 

As an example of the kind of laws that were enacted under this 
strict Protestant religious influence, I shall mention the following 
two, which were placed on the statute books of the above named 
states between 1640 and 1645. The first of the twelve capital laws 
of the state of Connecticut reads as follows : If any man after legal 
conviction shall worship any God but the Lord God, he shall be put 
to death. Another law provides that disobedient, cruel, and ungodly 
children should be put to death. All other laws enacted by these 
Protestant religionists breathe the same intolerant spirit. The same 
or very similar laws were passed in England and other countries 
under strict Protestant control. Now, Protestant reader, these re- 
form religionists or Protestants had deserted their native land for 
no other reason than to escape from the jurisdiction of laws forbidd- 
ing them to think and act religiously as their conscience dictated. 

242 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

What right then had these people to frame and enforce laws forbid- 
ding other people to think and act religiously according to the dictates 
of their conscience, especially in a country where no one as much 
as disputed their right to think or do as they liked, in religious 
matters? The enacting of a law which provides that unruly children 
be put to death would today be considered the most fiendish act a 
tyrant of the worst type could commit. What then, Protestant reader, 
shall we think when the same act is committed by a supposedly 
God-inspired people? Today in all civilized or nearly civilized coun- 
tries not only unruly children, but adult criminals are considered 
to be suffering from some mental disorders, in other words, not fully 
responsible for the undesirable or criminal acts they commit. 

If this is today the opinion of millions of people who are luke- 
warm or non-religious, why should this not have been known to such 
devout religious people as the Puritans, as well as to the pious people 
of all other Protestant denominations. This fact, Protestant reader, 
proves two things beyond contradiction : First, that no righteous 
God and loving Father, as described to us, could have been the in- 
spirer of these people. For surely a righteous and loving God and 
Father would help his children to distinguish the right from the 
wrong and not inspire them with thoughts which lead them to become 
brutes and tyrants toward their fellow men. Second, it proves that 
all religion, even that of the reformed type, instills and nourishes 
brotherly hatred within the minds of those who happen to fall into 
its clutches, which, in turn, inspires them to commit evil deeds on 
their fellow men and women. In other words, it proves my con- 
tention that religion of all descriptions is an agency for evil and the 
curse of the human race. 

As late as 1749, or less than two hundred years ago, these re- 
formed and pious Christians burned in the town of Essex fifteen 
innocent people as witches. Thousands of other innocent people 
were put to death in the same manner for the same reason by these 
reformed or Protestant Christians. Can you, Protestant reader, be- 
lieve that if an almighty, alwise, and righteous God were really in 
existence, and had anything at all in common with the reform or 
Protestant movement that He would have permitted thousands of 
people, including children, who were innocent of any real crime, to 
be tortured and slaughtered in his name? Think this over, Protes- 
tant reader, and draw your own conclusions. According to history, 
Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, was the only reformer 
who granted liberty of conscience, and he excluded the Unitarians 
because they did not believe in the divinity of Christ. 

The short sketch that I have drawn here should convince every 
fairminded Protestant, to whatever demonination he may belong, 
of three facts : First, that none of the founders of the different Pro- 
testant denominations were God-ordained men; second, that the 

243 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

Protestant religion as a whole or any division thereof is not of Godly 
origin; third, that no Godly Personality has ever been the guiding 
spirit of the Protestant religion as a whole or any division thereof. 
These facts being established prove, in spite of what your preachers 
may tell you to the contrary, that each and everyone of the Protestant 
denomnations as well as the Protestant movement as a whole is noth- 
ing more or less than a man-made institution, like every other re- 
ligious system ever established. The true facts of the matter, Pro- 
testant reader, are these : The Protestant religion came into exist- 
ence in exactly the same manner that political and all other reform 
movements come into being. The leaders or priesthood of the then 
Christian, or what is known today as the Roman Catholic church, 
had become so corrupt that every fairly intelligent and honest priest 
or layman felt himself in duty bound to protest against the super- 
stitious and unchristian teachings expounded and the inhuman and 
criminal deeds committed by popes and prelates in the name of re- 
ligion. Just as many well-meaning political reformers meet 
defeat before the power of the corrupt state or national political 
machine is broken, so many religious reformers met defeat at the 
hands of an international political machine which paraded under 
the name religion, until finally its power was broken. The Pro- 
testant religion as a whole is the outcome of that agitation. But, 
while the Reform or Protestant movement has brought a strong 
ray of light into the intellectual darkness which existed at the time 
of its birth by establishing the right to liberty of conscience, and 
while it discarded many of the false and superstitious teachings and 
pagan rites and ceremonies, it accepted and preserved enough of them 
to stamp it, like the orthodox religious systems, an agency for evil 
instead of for good. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, which 
is still taught by all Protestant denominations, is nothing more than 
a pagan doctrine applied to the Christian religion, the false doc- 
trine that a place called hell exists which is inhabited by evil spirits 
or devils, that Christ as part God and part man died for the re- 
demption of mankind, the celebrating of Christmas and Easter as 
holy days, and last, but not least, that all sins, including the black- 
est crimes can be forgiven, washed away through the blood of Christ 
for the mere asking. These are doing not one bit less harm than many 
doctrines of the Catholic church, including the one that sins or crimes 
can be forgiven or wiped out of existence by a priest. 

Both the orthodox and the reformed church promise the same 
in this respect, only their methods differ. Thomas Pain wrote, "If 
you accustom people to believe that priests or anyone else can for- 
give sins, you will have sins galore." There was never a truer say- 
ing uttered, Protestant reader. Make people believe that it is possi- 
ble to have the black stains of guilt removed as if they had never 
been there by their humbling themselves a little before an imag- 

244 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

inary God, and you will positively encourage them in committing 
sin or crimes. A real sin is a wrong of some kind committed by a 
human being on one or more of his fellow men or women, and to 
remove that stain of guilt, the one who did the wrong must make that 
wrong right and in no other way can anyone clear his conscience 
of any wrong done by him. No confessing to a priest or to a sup- 
posed God or Gods directly can make wrongs you committed right. 
Think over this very seriously, Protestant reader, and see if you 
do not come to the same conclusion. The clergy of the Reformed 
church as a whole are no more truthful, or any better morally, or 
any more sincere in what they preach to others, than those of the 
orthodox creeds. The presence of lightning rods on Protestant 
churches and the fact that many Protestant ministers leave their 
field of soul-saving, as they call it, for strictly commercial fields of 
activity, strongly support the first part of the above assertion. It 
proves conclusively that the Protestant clergy have either little or 
no confidence in the ability of that supposedly mighty and right- 
eous God they profess to believe in to protect or punish whom He 
likes, or, that they do not believe that a God of their own description 
has anything to do with directing the forces of nature, or is even in 
existence. The second fact proves that the clergy do not consider 
themselves very seriously as God-ordained men who labor in the 
vineyard of the Lord, for if the prospect of more congenial labor 
or a better chance for gaining the good things of this world can in- 
duce supposed representatives of a God, as described to us, to cease 
their labors for the Lord, they surely did not take themselves ser- 
iously in the role of God-ordained soul-savers. As to the second part 
of the above assertion, I personally know of cases of immorality 
among Protestant clergymen of which the details are unprintable. 
If we search modern history, we also find that the reformed or 
Protestant movement has produced among its clergy, criminals just 
as fiendish and perhaps just as many as have the orthodox creeds. 
Rev. Richardson of Boston who murdered a trusting and unsuspect- 
ing girl, another minister in California who murdered two girls and 
permitted an innocent man to go to the gallows, another in New 
York who practically swore the life of a man away in an affidavit 
signed by him are a few of the specimens produced. If religion has 
no better influence over its clergy or leaders, what then can we ex- 
pect from it for the rank and file? My Protestant friends, I feel 
confident that I have proven to you that, while the Protestant re- 
ligion is not as honeycombed with graft, and while its teachings 
and practises are more in accord with the twentieth century frame 
of thought than those of the Orthodox Christian creeds, it is in 
other respects as much a detriment to the human race as any other 
religious creed in existence. I, therefore, appeal to you, Protestant 
reader, to discard all hatred you may have toward those of other 

245 



Personal Talk to the Protestants 

races or creeds, to read the contents of this book very carefully, in- 
vestigate what is not clear to you, and if convinced that what I say 
about religion is true, desert the movement which is to this very 
day contributing a large share toward keeping the human race in 
mental darkness and in continual warfare with one another, and 
join a movement destined to give to the world the education it is 
so much in need of, and which will eventually establish real and 
lasting peace on earth and good will to all. 



246 



NOTICE. 



At the time I began to write this book, it was, and still is my 
intention, to also hold a personal talk with the followers of Moham- 
med, of Confucius, and of Budda in reference to the doctrines, rites, 
and ceremonies of their particular creeds. Since the first edition of 
this work will not be printed in the languages that the above named 
people are familiar with, I decided, at the request of several friends, 
to permit this edition to go to press before the private talks to these 
people had been completed. The second edition will undoubtedly 
be printed in all modern languages, and a talk to the Mohammedans, 
the Confucionists, and the Buddhists will positively appear therein. 

The Author. 



247 



CHAPTER IX 

Conclusion 

I feel confident that every fairly intelligent and fairminded reader 
will admit that I have positively proven that the clergy of every 
religious creed do not tell the truth in their teachings, and that re- 
ligion of all descriptions has always been, and is to this day, an agency 
for evil which instills and nourishes brotherly hatred within man. 
If there was any doubt about this in the mind of any intelligent 
person, the war or wholesale murder now in progress in Europe 
should dispel all such doubts. This fact then makes it practically 
impossible to bring about the much desired condition of real peace 
on earth and good will to men as long as such teachings are per- 
mitted to do their damnable work unchallenged. While all relig- 
ious creeds under the sun claim that the ultimate object of their 
existence is to make the world better by instilling and fostering 
brotherly feeling within the minds and hearts of man, the Christian 
religion, including both the orthodox and the reformed factions, is 
considered the most effective means of all others to bring this about, 
yet the war or wholesale murder above referred to is taking place 
in a part of the world where the Christian religion has been taught 
for at least fifteen centuries. 

Religion as a whole is supposed to be a teacher of good morals, 
a means to inspire those under its influence to noble thoughts and 
deeds. The real worth of any teaching or correctional instituion 
can only be correctly judged by the effects its activities have on 
those who have been for a reasonable length of time under its in- 
fluence. If that is the case, dear reader, it is only fair that we judge 
that teaching institution called religion, also by the results its teach- 
ing has produced in the fifteen centuries it has been in absolute con- 
trol of affairs. What then are those results? Anyone who reads 
the daily papers knows that when war was declared, within a period 
of three or four days, tens of millions of religious and supposedly 
civlized human beings had the brotherly hatred within them aroused 
to such an extent that it turned the apparently peaceful man of yes- 
terday in to a raving beast of today. The actions of two dogs who 
one minute were playful associates and the next minute tried to tear 
each other to pieces for no other reason than that their owners urged 
each to attack the other, is, in my opinion, a close second to the 

248 



Conclusion 

actions of the human beings now engaged in war. The question 
now arises : What do the actions of these people prove if they prove 
anything? They prove, dear reader, and most conclusively that, 
that particular religion at least under whose influence the people 
of Europe have been for the last fifteen hundred years, has failed 
utterly in its purpose. In other words, the Christian religion, the 
supposedly strongest influence for good, has proven itself a com- 
plete failure. For, if the hatred toward their fellow-men had not 
been implanted and fostered within the minds of these people, it 
would have been impossible to inflame it and arouse them within 
a few days to such an outburst of fury. For, remember, dear reader, 
the spark must exist before you can create a flame, no matter how 
much wind you use. If the doctrine of the brotherhood of man had 
been preached even in the mildest form to those living today and 
to their ancestors during the past fifteen centuries, there would have 
been no hatred to inflame, and the people of each nation would have 
politely refused, even if requested, to slaughter their fellow men of 
other nations, and consequentlv war would have been an impossi- 
bility. At this stage many readers will say. "If what you say is 
true, there seems to be no hope of ever establishing peace on earth." 
To those readers I say, "Your fears are without foundation." 

All that is necessary to induce human beings to act in a brother- 
ly manner toward each other is to teach each one that every human 
creature the world over has in every respect the same feeling as he 
himself, and to respect each other for their own sakes and not for 
the sake of pleasing an imaginary God, or to gain a reward. All 
those who in their travels have come in contact with really educated 
men and women will bear me out when I say that among such 
people of all races and creeds, hatred toward their fellow men for 
religious or racial reasons is an unknown quantity. 

I shall use the following examples to prove that the members 
of the human race are not naturally hateful, but that the teaching 
they receive and other good or evil influences exerted over them 
make them what they are. Surely no two human beings can be more 
alike in character or have more effection for each other than twins. 
Permit twins when still young to be taken apart and then instill 
within each hatred toward the other, and you will see the spectacle 
of two human beings who had the same father and mother, who de- 
veloped side by side at the same time in the same mother's womb, 
and who saw the light of day almost at the same time, hating and fight- 
ing each other as bitterly as the most hostile strangers would. Now 
try that same experiment on two or more people who know each 
other very little but possess good common sense, and you will find 
that you have a hard task before you. You will find, dear reader, 
in every instance whether the number of people involved is large 
or small, that where ignorance and its twin brother bigotry pre- 

249 



Conclusion 

vails, fighting among themselves is the order of the day ; while among 
people of all races who have been taught to respect their fellow 
men, such a state of affairs is impossible. The fact that in the year 
1913, at a ball game between a Catholic and a Protestant team, the 
waving of two flags which in this case signified religious differences 
was sufficient to arouse them to commit murder, should convince 
any fairly intelligent person that if the damnable teachings 
taught by all religious creeds are permitted to influence the mem- 
bers of the human race in the future as they have in the past, peace 
on earth and good will to men will remain an impossibility. The 
proper kind of knowledge which comes through proper teaching and 
training, is in every instances the factor that preserves peace, and 
the lack of that knowledge is, in every case where hatred and strife 
exist, the reason for their existence. 

Of late years, international peace conferences have been held, 
a peace palace, costing millions, has been built, peace leagues were 
organized, and many private enterprises started in the interest of 
peace. Yet each one of these well-meant efforts and all of them to- 
gether did not preserve peace, even among supposed-to-be civilized 
and Christian nations. The national movement in the United States 
which advocates praying for peace and which has no doubt been 
started by well-meaning people will accomplish no more than the 
earlier efforts in that direction. There is no doubt at all in my mind 
that Mr. Carnegie who spent several millions of dollars in the in- 
terest of world peace, and that most, if not all, the other men and 
women who were active in one form or another in the interest of 
world peace, were sincere in what they did and expected that their 
efforts would bring the desired results. The fact that all the efforts 
of these many well-meaning people did not prevent the war or whole- 
sale murder now raging, proves that other and more effective meth- 
ods must be adopted if world peace is to become a reality. This 
being so, permit me, dear reader, to propose a remedy by stating 
briefly the aims and objects of the organization which has been called 
into being through my efforts, and which, I am certain, will develop 
in a short time into a world movement which will positively bring 
the results so eagerly desired by millions of people the world over. 
The name of the organization is "The True Brotherhood of Man- 
kind, or The Religion of Today." Its scope is world-wide. The five 
demands laid down in the fifth chapter of this book constitute its fun' 
damental principles. To propogate this doctrine, we shall make use of 
proper schooling for young and old, motion pictures, the stage, the 
lecture platform, and -every other civilized and legal device and method 
which may assist in spreading the true gospel of the brotherhood 
of man. Church buildings are today temples of falsehood and ignor- 
ance ; let us convert them into temples of truth and knowledge. The 
missionaries who have been in the past and are to this day sent to the 

250 



Conclusion 

ignorant and uncivilized, substitute one brand of ignorance and 
superstition for another. Let us send missionaries who will wipe out 
all ignorance and superstition by teaching these unfortunate people the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With this purpose 
in view, I appeal to the honest clergy of all creeds, public officials, 
proprietors and editors of newspapers and magazines, and all other 
men and women the world over to shake off their fear of those who 
might threaten to boycott them for daring to act according to their 
honest convictions. Be cowards or hypocrits no longer, assert your 
man and womanhood, join this movement and assist in the propa- 
gation of the only doctrine which will make peace on earth and good 
will to men a reality, instead of a farce as it is today. 



251 



a 



LBAp'15 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



4 i h t 



■ 



ma 



fitfra 



9 



